get_system_packages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It conveys a read-only list operation and explicitly states no parameters are required, but it does not disclose important behavioral details such as whether only pre-installed packages are included, whether a device connection is required, or how the returned list is ordered or formatted. For a simple getter this is adequate but not thorough.

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 sentence that front-loads the main action and target. 'No parameters are required' is somewhat redundant given the empty schema, but it is brief and reinforces the calling contract without adding meaningful noise.

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 list tool, the description provides the essential purpose and scope, but it does not position the tool relative to its many sibling package-listing tools. Without an output schema, a bit more detail about the returned list's contents or format would make the description more complete for an agent.

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 parametersable, and the input schema already documents this completely with an empty properties object. The description's statement that 'No parameters are required' is redundant but correct. Since there are no parameters to explain, the semantic baseline is high and the description does not need to add more.

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 a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('system-installed packages on the connected Android device'), so an agent can easily understand what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like all_packages, user_packages, or get_all_packages, which limits clarity in the surrounding context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the multiple sibling package-listing tools. Since siblings include all_packages, user_packages, system_packages, get_all_packages, and get_user_packages, the absence of alternative routing or exclusion criteria leaves the agent without enough information to confidently choose this tool.

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