scan_ssis_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 describes the discovery action and return format, but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impacts for large directories, authentication requirements for git/SQL sources, or error handling. The description adds basic context but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core purpose and output, the second provides critical constraint information. It's front-loaded with the main functionality and wastes no words on redundant information.

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's moderate complexity (4 parameters, multiple source types) and no annotations or output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and constraints but lacks information about authentication needs, error conditions, performance characteristics, and what 'basic metadata' includes. For a discovery tool with multiple source types, more behavioral context 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the source_type enum values and that it discovers '.dtsx files', but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter interactions or usage patterns beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the specific action ('discover all SSIS packages'), target resource ('.dtsx files'), and output format ('JSON list of found packages with name, path, and basic metadata'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like analyze_ssis_package (which analyzes rather than discovers) and convert_ssis_package (which converts rather than discovers).

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 clear context about when to use this tool by specifying the source_type options and what it returns. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among the sibling tools (e.g., use analyze_ssis_package for detailed analysis instead of just discovery).

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