list_package_contents

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses that only public subprograms are returned and lists the output fields. However, it does not mention read-only nature, error handling, permissions required, or performance implications. It offers minimal behavioral context beyond the basic capability.

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, using two sentences to convey purpose and output. Every word serves a function, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers the primary function and output but omits details like parameter format (case sensitivity? wildcards?), error scenarios, and prerequisites (e.g., user must have access to the package). For a low-complexity tool with no output schema, it is adequate but not thorough.

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 description does not explain the parameters 'owner' and 'package_name' at all. Given 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate by clarifying their meaning (e.g., 'owner' is the Oracle schema, 'package_name' is the package identifier), but it omits any such detail, leaving the agent to infer from the titles.

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 all public subprograms inside a Fusion Oracle package, specifies the return fields, and distinguishes it from siblings like get_procedure_signature (which focuses on a single procedure) and describe_table (which describes tables).

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., get_procedure_signature or read_object_source). It lacks explicit context such as 'use this to explore package structure' or 'for a specific procedure signature, use get_procedure_signature instead'.

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