list_allowed_packages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and addresses key behavioral aspects. It discloses that only whitelisted packages are installable for security reasons, implying a read-only, safe operation. It doesn't add details about output formatting, but that's not required for a straightforward listing tool.

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: three sentences that front-load the purpose, then add usage guidance and return information. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: the action, the security context, when to use it, and the result. It is complete for its complexity level.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear enum and description for the language parameter. The description adds minimal new meaning beyond confirming the languages covered (Python, JavaScript, TypeScript), but doesn't elevate the parameter understanding beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('List all packages allowed to be installed') and a clear resource ('for each language'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_supported_languages and execute_code by focusing on package availability, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 clear context for use: 'Use this tool to check which packages are available before writing code that requires external dependencies.' It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the guidance is sufficient for a simple list tool.

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