get_all_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. The description only states that it returns a list; it does not explicitly state this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention any potential side effects, permissions, or response characteristics. While the operation is inherently read-only, the absence of any explicit statement or caveat leaves the agent without clear expectations about safety or non-mutating behavior.

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 two sentences with no redundant phrasing. The main purpose is front-loaded ('Returns a list of all packages'), followed by the parameter details. Every sentence adds value, and there is no filler. It is appropriately concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, but given the presence of sibling tools with overlapping functionality, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the relationship to all_packages, user_packages, or system_packages, nor does it specify the return format (e.g., array of package name strings vs. objects). It also omits edge cases like both filters set to true or false. With no output schema and no annotation coverage, more context is needed for an agent to use it effectively and avoid confusion with siblings.

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 coverage is 0% (no property descriptions), so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains both parameters: 'Accepts `user_installed_only` and `system_installed_only` as optional boolean parameters to filter the results.' This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only provides defaults. However, it does not clarify behavior when both are true or false, nor does it describe the output format, so it's not fully complete but does cover the basics.

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's function: 'Returns a list of all packages on the connected Android device' with optional filters. The verb 'Returns' and resource 'packages' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like all_packages, user_packages, or system_packages, which likely serve similar purposes, so it misses the sibling-differentiation aspect that would earn a 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus its alternatives. It does not mention any conditions or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools like user_packages or system_packages. An agent would have to infer from the parameter names alone when to prefer this over the more specialized sibling tools. This is a significant gap for a tool with multiple near-equivalent siblings.

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