system_packages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it returns a list of package names, which is clear, but does not mention any side effects (unlikely) or permission requirements. It is a simple read operation, and the description's simplicity is adequate, but more could be added about the format or any limitations.

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, front-loads the core purpose, and wastes no words. It is perfectly concise for a zero-parameter tool.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient: it tells the agent what it returns (list of system package names) and that no input is needed. The only minor gap is not naming sibling tools to help differentiate, but that is not critical for invoking 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 tool has no parameters, and the schema is empty. The description confirms that no parameters are required, which adds value over the empty schema by telling the agent that no input is needed. Since there are no parameters to explain, the description fully covers parameter semantics.

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 returns a list of system application package names, which is specific and distinct from siblings like all_packages and user_packages. However, it does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 says 'No parameters are required' which implies it is a simple query, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool as opposed to all_packages or user_packages. The context of 'pre-installed apps' gives some guidance, but no explicit alternatives are named.

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