list_packs

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the transparency burden and does so well: it explicitly declares 'Read-only' and notes that the listing reflects server startup discovery, implying a static snapshot rather than live state. It also pre-announces the diagnostic content (load status, why skipped), which sets expectations beyond the empty schema.

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 entire description is one well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary purpose, then adds the specific details in a parallel clause and closes with a one-word safety qualifier. Every segment earns its place and there is no filler.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient: it specifies the full scope of returned information (status, counts, skip reasons, replacements) and the read-only nature. An agent can invoke and interpret the result without needing further clarification.

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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema is an empty object with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description reinforces that no input is needed by focusing entirely on the returned information.

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 names the resource ('runtime tool packs discovered at server startup'), a specific action ('List'), and enumerates the exact information returned (load status, tool counts, skip reasons, replaced core tools). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_processes or workspace_info, which target different resources.

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 makes the tool's intended context clear by scoping it to startup-discovered runtime tool packs, so an agent knows when it applies. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as list_processes or pixinsight_info or state when not to use this tool, leaving that distinction implicit.

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