list_agent_packs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'List saved reusable agent packs from catalog,' which implies a read-only operation but doesn't confirm safety, permissions required, pagination, rate limits, or what 'saved' entails. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—'List saved reusable agent packs from catalog.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary details.

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 the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. The output schema likely covers return values, so the description doesn't need to explain those. However, for a listing tool with no behavioral context or parameter guidance, it leaves the agent with incomplete information, scoring as the minimum viable 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?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no information about parameters. Since schema_description_coverage is low (<50%), the description fails to compensate by explaining 'packCatalogPath' or its role. With 0 parameters documented in the description, the baseline is 4, but the lack of any parameter context reduces it to 3, as it doesn't add value beyond the 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 resource ('saved reusable agent packs from catalog'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'rank_agent_packs' or 'apply_agent_pack' by focusing on listing rather than ranking or applying. However, it doesn't specify the scope (e.g., all packs vs. filtered) or format, keeping it from a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'rank_agent_packs' or 'materialize_recommended_agents'. The description implies usage for viewing saved packs but doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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