list_code_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 merely states the action 'List' without revealing read-only nature, filtering behavior, default limits, or any side effects. The description adds no context beyond the tool name itself.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified and borders on tautology. It avoids bloat but sacrifices necessary information, making it minimally acceptable rather than well-structured.

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?

Despite having six optional parameters and an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what a code package is, how filtering works, or what the output represents, leaving the agent to guess or rely on schema names alone.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of parameters like name_like, max_records, or status_filter. Parameter names offer some hints, but the description fails to define formats, allowed values, or how filters interact, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 'List registered code packages' clearly states a specific verb and resource, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings by using 'list' as opposed to 'describe' or 'register', though it does not explicitly call out that distinction.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over sibling tools like describe_code_packages or other list tools.

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