list_system_packages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds only that disabled packages are included in the result, which is mild extra context; it says nothing about the optional device scoping or what happens when device is omitted.

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 with zero filler, which is appropriate for a simple list tool. It is efficient but too thin to earn a top score given the unaddressed parameter and usage context.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a tool with an optional but entirely undocumented `device` parameter, the description does not do enough to tell an agent how to invoke it correctly across multiple devices.

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 single `device` parameter is undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description mentions no filtering by device at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap; the agent cannot tell whether omitting `device` lists all devices or is invalid.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (lists installed RouterOS packages) plus an extra scope detail (which are disabled). It does not name or distinguish itself from any sibling, even though siblings like get_system_package_update and get_system_resource exist, so it lands at 'clear but no sibling differentiation'.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives suggested. The agent can infer that this is the read path for package inventory, but the description provides no explicit routing or exclusion.

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