list_packages_for_org

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. "List" implies a read-only operation, but the description does not mention pagination, response format, authentication needs, or other behavioral details. It is not misleading but lacks depth.

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 extremely concise—a single five-word sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it may be too terse given the lack of other documentation.

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 tool with 3 parameters (2 required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not mention what the returned list contains, whether filtering is possible, or any usage constraints. The description is minimally viable but incomplete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining parameter meaning. It only mentions 'organization', which maps to the org parameter, but completely ignores package_type and visibility. The enums in the schema are self-descriptive, but the description adds no value beyond them.

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 uses a specific verb ("List") and resource ("packages") with a clear scope ("for an organization"). This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_branches or list_releases, making the purpose immediately obvious.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool, what alternatives exist, or any prerequisites. It is a bare statement of action without context for selection among the many sibling tools.

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