list_packs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the returned content scope (pack ids, versions, map usage, unreferenced versions) and implies a read-only inventory, but it does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, pagination, coverage limits, or any side effects.

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 tight: 'Shelf inventory' front-loads the gist, followed by a four-item list of what is included. Every word contributes information, and there is no 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?

Given zero parameters and a present output schema, the description does not need to explain return structure. It covers the key inventory concerns (pack identities, versions, map dependencies, unreferenced versions). The only notable gap is usage guidance relative to pack-focused siblings, which is already penalized under usage_guidelines.

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 zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to document about inputs. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description adds semantic value by clarifying what the result covers.

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 identifies the resource (pack ids, versions) and adds distinguishing scope: 'which maps use which, unreferenced versions' — features that separate it from get_pack and fetch_pack. However, it is a noun-phrase fragment rather than an explicit verb+resource statement, and the differentiation from siblings is implicit, not stated.

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 given for when to use this tool versus siblings like get_pack, fetch_pack, or remove_pack. The phrase 'Shelf inventory' implies an audit/listing purpose, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing.

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