ispw_list_packages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds context that packages are deployment units and that the return is a formatted list or error message. It does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like pagination, permissions, or rate limits.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then organized into Args, Returns, and Examples sections. The additional detail is useful given the low schema coverage, but some repetition of schema field definitions could be trimmed. Overall it is appropriately sized and easy to scan.

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?

For a simple list tool with read-only annotations and an output schema, the description covers the purpose, all parameters, and usage examples. It does not mention pagination or sorting, which could matter for large result sets, but the output schema handles return values. It is nearly complete for the expected agent needs.

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?

The schema description coverage is reported as 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it names srid, package_id, and response_format, explains their meanings, and gives concrete examples. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though it largely repeats the field descriptions present in the $defs.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List ISPW packages for a specific SRID.' It also clarifies the scope by noting that it retrieves all packages or filters by package ID. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like ispw_get_package, but the list-vs-get distinction is inherent in the verb.

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 provides examples for listing all packages and filtering by package ID, which implies the primary use case. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ispw_get_package or ispw_list_sets. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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