system/packages

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 discloses auto-detection and the rpm limitation, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether root privileges are ever required, or what the output structure looks like. For a read-oriented list tool, this is partially transparent but leaves important behavior unspecified.

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 a single, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the primary action ('Lists installed packages'), then adds auto-detection and the rpm caveat. Every clause earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description should compensate by explaining what the tool returns or any side effects. It does neither. It also doesn't clarify when the privileged parameter might be needed or whether the operation is safe to run. The tool is simple, but an agent would need more context about output format and potential permission requirements to use it correctly.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so each parameter is already documented. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as parameter interactions or default behaviors. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 installed packages and specifies the package manager auto-detection. It also explicitly notes rpm-based systems are unsupported, distinguishing it from potential alternatives like system/os-release. The verb-resource pair is specific and unambiguous.

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 clear context on when to use this tool (listing packages) and highlights a key limitation (rpm not supported). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the limitation effectively guides an agent away from rpm environments. This is above average but not a full 5 since no explicit exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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