List Jev packs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the catalog is 'closed' (static, read-only) and implies a safe listing operation. It does not describe the return format or any edge cases, but for a zero-parameter list operation this is a minor gap rather than a serious one.

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?

Two dense sentences front-load the purpose and then provide the complete routing logic. Every clause earns its place; there is no repetition of schema or annotation content.

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 list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description explains how it fits into the broader tool flow: how to proceed with a matching pack, how to fall back to run_questions, and that no free-form ask exists. An agent can invoke it correctly with full awareness of next steps.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details because none exist, and the routing guidance about 'id' refers to other tools, not this one.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List the closed catalog of TypeSafe Jev packs.' It is clearly differentiated from siblings by framing packs as shortcuts and explicitly pairing them with describe_pack and run_pack, leaving no ambiguity that this tool only lists rather than executes.

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?

Provides an explicit decision rule: 'if an id fits, describe_pack + run_pack' and 'If no pack fits, do not stop — use run_questions.' It also warns against a nonexistent free-form tool. This is exemplary when-to-use guidance that leaves nothing to inference.

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