list_tracked

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly states this is a read operation that returns version and breaking-change counts, which is transparent. However, it does not disclose potential details like authentication, rate limits, or side effects, though those are likely minimal for a list tool.

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 concise: one sentence of 10 words with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place.

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 low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is fairly complete. It states the action and outputs. It could be slightly improved by clarifying that the ecosystem parameter filters results, but this is inferred. No mention of pagination or ordering, but likely not needed for a simple list.

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 coverage is 100% for the single optional parameter 'ecosystem', and the schema description already explains it with examples. The tool description does not add any further meaning beyond what is in the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('packages we track') and specifies output fields (latest version + breaking-change counts). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_package (single package) and get_recent_breaking (breaking changes).

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 implies usage for listing tracked packages but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_package or check_version. No exclusions or context for selection are given.

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