pio_pkg_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb 'List' implies a non-mutating read operation, and 'resolved' adds useful context about the state being inspected. However, it does not explicitly state that no changes are made, nor does it mention any prerequisites or side effects.

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?

A single concise sentence with no filler. Every element—'resolved', the package categories, 'project', and 'versions'—contributes meaning and the core action is front-loaded.

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 simple, read-only listing tool with no required parameters and an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It communicates what is listed and for which scope; the main omissions are parameter-level guidance and usage differentiation, but neither is critical for a basic invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'env' or 'project_dir' parameters. The parameter names and titles are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('platform, toolchain, and library packages'), and a scope ('for the project'). The word 'resolved' and the package-type enumeration distinguish it from siblings like pio_pkg_outdated and pio_pkg_search, even without naming them.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pio_pkg_outdated or pio_pkg_search. The only implied context is that it operates on a project, but no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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