editor_list_packages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact – that listing does not extract packages, i.e. no side effects on disk – but says nothing about the return shape or whether a bridge must be installed first.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence of roughly ten words with no filler, and the scope-limiting clause is attached to the main verb where it matters. Nothing is wasted and nothing needs reordering.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool this is nearly sufficient, but with no output schema the description should say what a package listing looks like (names, paths, metadata) and whether a connection/bridge is required. Those omissions are the only real gaps.

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 takes zero parameters and the input schema is an empty object, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing any argument requirements.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('installed Fusion .gro packages'), which is clear on its own. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling editor_list_entries, which plausibly lists contents rather than packages, so an agent must infer the boundary from the names alone.

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?

'without extracting them' hints at the alternative behavior (extracting a package) and thereby implies when this tool is preferred. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no pointer to editor_list_entries for the complementary task, leaving usage to inference.

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