sophos_list_software_packages

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true) already indicate this is a read-only, non-destructive list. The description adds that it lists static packages, which provides some context but does not detail pagination, authorization needs, or rate limits.

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 concise sentences with front-loaded purpose. No redundant or unnecessary information. Every word adds value.

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 is adequate for a simple read-only listing tool but lacks details on return structure, pagination, or response behavior. With 9 parameters and no output schema, more context about what is returned would improve completeness.

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 summarizes key filterable parameters (endpoint type, platform, package type, date ranges) that map directly to schema properties. Since schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, this summary provides useful emphasis beyond the raw schema.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'software packages', specifying 'static (fixed-version)' to differentiate from recommended packages. This helps distinguish it from siblings like sophos_get_recommended_packages.

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 implies this tool is for static/fixed-version packages by mentioning 'static' but does not explicitly state when to use it over sophos_get_recommended_packages or other listing tools. No when-not guidance is provided.

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