get_user_packages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a list, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly mention safety (e.g., no modification) or any edge conditions like device connectivity. It is adequate for a simple read operation but lacks depth.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the purpose and the lack of parameters. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 the tool's low complexity (no parameters) and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It clearly states what the tool returns and from where. It could optionally note that it is read-only, but the lack of annotations makes this minor gap acceptable. It does not specify the exact format of the list (e.g., package names only), but this is not critical for a list-returning tool.

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 parameters, and the description correctly notes that no parameters are required. This matches the schema (empty properties) and adds no extra semantic burden. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description satisfies it without introducing ambiguity.

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: it returns a list of user-installed packages on the connected Android device. This is a specific verb and resource, and the qualifier 'user-installed' distinguishes it from sibling tools like system_packages and all_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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., get_all_packages, user_packages, system_packages). It only states that no parameters are required, which is about invocation, not usage context. No exclusions or alternative routing is provided.

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