discover_packages

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 vaguely implies a read operation ('discover'), but doesn't specify if it's safe, requires network access, has rate limits, or what the output entails. This is inadequate for a tool that likely interacts with package systems.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 has an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, with no annotations and a vague purpose, it lacks details on behavior and context. For a discovery tool that might involve scanning or querying, more information on scope and constraints would be helpful.

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 tool has 0 required parameters and 1 optional parameter with 0% schema description coverage. The description doesn't mention parameters at all, which is acceptable here since there are no required parameters, and the optional one is simple (a boolean). This aligns with the baseline for 0 required parameters.

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 'Discover available packages and their APIs' states a general purpose but lacks specificity about what 'discover' entails or what scope of packages is involved. It distinguishes from siblings like 'analyze_memories' or 'create_collection' by focusing on packages, but doesn't clarify if this is for local or remote packages, or what 'APIs' specifically refers to.

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. Sibling tools like 'explore_existing_apis' or 'validate_package_usage' might overlap, but the description doesn't mention them or specify contexts like initial setup vs. ongoing discovery. This leaves the agent with minimal direction.

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