all_packages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It accurately communicates a read-only listing operation and current-installation scope, but it does not disclose the return format (package names vs. richer metadata), ordering, or error behavior if no device is connected.

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 front-loaded sentence states the action, resource, scope, and parameter requirement with no filler or repetition. Every word earns its place.

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 parameterless list tool, this is nearly complete: it identifies the target device, the installed-package scope, and the inclusivity of both system and user packages. The only minor gap is the absence of explicit output-format details, which is low-impact for this simple operation.

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 schema already covers the parameterless signature completely, and the description reinforces it with 'No parameters are required.' This is sufficient for a zero-parameter tool and adds no unnecessary parameter detail.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns a list'), names the exact resource ('all packages'), and clarifies scope ('both system and user-installed'), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like user_packages and system_packages.

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?

It clearly conveys the context of listing every package currently installed on the device and explicitly notes that no parameters are required. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when a more specific sibling such as user_packages or system_packages should be preferred.

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