list_proofjson_packs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that ProofJSON v1 is supplied_data_only and does not independently verify certain aspects unless configured. This adds valuable behavioral context beyond just 'list packs'.

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 concise with two sentences: the first states purpose, the second adds critical context. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose and the context of the packs. It could potentially mention output format but is complete enough for use.

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?

With 0 parameters, the description adds value by explaining the nature of the listed items (packs and their limitations). This is beyond what the empty schema provides, achieving the baseline 4 for parameterless tools.

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 lists live ProofJSON Pack Tasks (verification capabilities). It distinguishes from siblings like assess_invoice_before_payment and verify_proofjson_proof by focusing on listing available packs rather than performing assessments or verifications.

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 provides context on when to use the tool by explaining what ProofJSON v1 does and does not do, implying its use is for understanding available verification packs. However, it lacks explicit direct comparison to siblings or explicit 'use this when' guidance.

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