List packages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses key filtering behavior (only packages with at least one score) and default sorting, but it does not mention the response format, pagination, or explicitly state that this is a read-only operation beyond the verb 'List'. There is no contradiction with any structured metadata.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and adds relevant qualifiers without any filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 complete parameter schema and simple list operation, the description adequately covers the key behavior: what is listed, the score filter, and default ordering. The lack of an output schema is somewhat mitigated by the straightforward nature of a list tool, though explicit return structure or pagination details would improve completeness.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with full descriptions and enums for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor context about 'composite score' and default sort, but it does not meaningfully expand on parameter usage beyond what the schema already declares.

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 ('List') and resource ('npm/PyPI packages') with a clear scope ('that have at least one score') and default ordering ('sorted by composite score by default'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_package (single package lookup) and request_crawl (initiating crawls).

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need a list of scored npm/PyPI packages. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to distinguish this list operation from package details or crawling requests.

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