list_packages_for_authenticated_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the required token scope, the mandatory package_type parameter, optional visibility, and pagination behavior. It does not explicitly state that it is read-only, but the verb 'List' implies that, and the dependence on GITHUB_TOKEN is clarified.

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, dense paragraph with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary purpose, then provides necessary requirements and parameters, ending with a docs link. Every sentence contributes to understanding.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: scope requirement, required/optional parameters, pagination, and docs reference. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool and understand its behavior.

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 50% (package_type and visibility have descriptions). The description adds value by explicitly stating that package_type is required and that page/per_page are for pagination, which the schema does not describe. It also restates enum values, but this is redundant yet still helpful.

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 verb and resource: 'List packages owned by the authenticated user'. It also specifies the token owner and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_package_for_authenticated_user or list_package_versions by focusing on listing packages for the authenticated user.

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 usage context including required read:packages scope, the mandatory package_type filter, optional visibility filter, and pagination parameters. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or contrast it with alternatives, but it gives enough context for correct invocation.

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