gia_list_packs

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe operation. The description adds 'Classification: INFORMATIONAL', confirming non-destructive behavior but does not significantly extend beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two compact sentences: first states the action, second lists filters. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is adequate for a simple listing tool but lacks detail about the return format (e.g., pagination, item structure). Since no output schema exists, more context could help, but the purpose is still clear.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed enum descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description merely restates the filterable fields without adding new meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'List available governed operations packs' with specific verb and resource, and lists filter criteria. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like gia_apply_pack (applies a pack) and gia_dry_run_pack (dry run).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for listing packs with available filters, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide direct comparisons to alternatives. However, sibling tool names make the context clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.