yaaif_desktop_tool_packages_list

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly indicates a read-style 'list' operation against the tenant registry, which is useful. However, it does not mention query filtering, pagination limits, authentication needs, or what the response will contain.

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 that names the action, resource, scope, and endpoint with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple list operation.

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?

For a two-parameter list tool, the description is minimally adequate: it identifies the resource and endpoint. But with no output schema, no parameter documentation, and no annotation safety signals, the agent lacks important context about filtering, response shape, and operational constraints.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for its two parameters, and the description does not explain 'q' or 'limit' at all. The agent is left to infer their meaning from the parameter names alone, with no guidance on filtering, pagination, or formatting.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('command-based MCP tool packages in the tenant Package Registry'), and even gives the API path. This clearly separates it from sibling operations like yaaif_desktop_tool_package_get (single package) and other list tools targeting different resource domains.

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 makes the tool's context clear by specifying the Package Registry and the package type, which is enough to distinguish it from sibling list tools like yaaif_mcp_servers_list or yaaif_local_tools_list. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative.

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