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. It clearly states the operation returns a list of package names and requires no parameters, which covers the core behavior. It doesn't disclose additional details like whether the list could be empty or any device-connection prerequisites beyond 'connected Android device.'

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the only usage note (no parameters). There is no wasted wording or irrelevant detail.

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-returning tool without an output schema, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly. A reader knows what it returns and that no arguments are needed. The only minor gap is that it doesn't distinguish it from the similar get_user_packages sibling.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema coverage is effectively 100%, so the description needs to add little. It explicitly notes 'No parameters are required,' which reinforces the schema and leaves no 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 uses a specific verb ('Returns'), a specific resource ('list of user-installed application package names'), and a clear scope ('on the connected Android device'). The 'user-installed' qualifier helps distinguish it from system_packages/all_packages, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the similarly named get_user_packages sibling.

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 clearly states that no parameters are required, implying this is a simple read-only call. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over all_packages or system_packages, nor does it mention alternatives.

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