list_packs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the browsing/searching behavior but does not disclose what happens when no parameters are provided, whether query and category can be combined, pagination behavior, or the shape/scope of the returned list. This is a meaningful gap for an unannotated tool.

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?

A single concise sentence with no filler. The core capability is front-loaded and the sentence earns its place by explaining both browsing modes without redundancy.

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 optional-parameter list tool, the description gives a usable overview, but it is not complete: there is no output schema, no statement of return value shape, no mention of how to discover valid categories, and no explicit relationship to sibling tools like list_categories or get_pack. It is adequate but leaves several gaps an agent would need to resolve.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning for two of the three parameters: 'category' maps to the category field, and 'search their titles and descriptions' explains the query parameter. The limit parameter is not explained in either the schema or the description, though its schema definition includes defaults and bounds.

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 clear action ('browse') and resource ('prompt packs'), and specifies two distinct modes: by category or by searching titles/descriptions. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_pack, which implies retrieving a single pack, though it does not explicitly name the sibling.

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 when to use the tool: when browsing packs by category or searching pack titles/descriptions. However, it provides no explicit guidance about alternatives, such as using search_prompts for prompt-level search or get_pack for a specific pack, leaving some routing to inference.

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