List Context Packages

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) are complemented by description stating 'Effect: read' and 'Human approval: not required for this read or staging action'. The description also details failure modes (login_required, project_not_selected, etc.) and follow-up actions, providing rich behavioral context beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 long but well-structured with clear sections ('Use when', 'Do not use when', 'Requires', etc.), making it scannable. Every sentence adds value, but conciseness could be improved by reducing redundancy (e.g., 'read or staging action' vs. annotations).

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 5 parameters, output schema exists, and many siblings, the description covers purpose, usage, effect, error handling, and post-action guidance ('Then: follow typed result state; review pending proposals/drafts'). It is complete and addresses common scenarios. The output schema covers return values, so no need to describe them.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema. However, the 'On failure' section indirectly relates to parameter usage (e.g., projectId validation). No extra credit for parameter details, but no deduction either.

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 tool lists reusable context packages in the selected Abyss project. It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('context packages'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_context_package' (retrieve one) and 'reuse_context_package' (action). The purpose is unambiguous and well-scoped.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use ('Use this before get_context_package or reuse_context_package when continuing team work') and when not to use ('a narrower tool better matches the intent, the project scope is unresolved, or the user has declined the action'). This is comprehensive and actionable.

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