list_packages

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

The description discloses the return format with success/error structure, covering read-only behavior. Without annotations, it provides good transparency by explicitly stating the output shape. However, it does not discuss potential side effects (none expected) or authentication requirements.

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 extremely concise with no extraneous text. It uses a clear docstring format with a Returns section, making it easy to parse. Every sentence provides value.

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?

Given the simplicity (no parameters, output schema exists), the description fully covers the essential information: what the tool does and its return format. No additional details are needed for complete understanding.

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?

There are no parameters, and the input schema is fully covered (100%). The description adds no parameter-specific information but explains the return structure, which is beyond the schema. Baseline is 3 for high schema_coverage.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get list' and the resource 'all packages', making the purpose unambiguous. It differentiates from sibling tools by focusing exclusively on package listing, which is distinct from other tools like 'export_package' or 'list_classes'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'export_package' or 'import_package'. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where this tool is preferable.

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