get_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 mentions the return type ('str: A list... as a string'), which adds some value, but fails to cover critical aspects like whether this requires device permissions, if it's read-only (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), potential rate limits, or how the list is formatted (e.g., sorted, delimited). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the purpose stated clearly in the first sentence and return details in the second. Every sentence adds value without waste, but it could be slightly improved by integrating the return information more seamlessly or adding brief 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is adequate but has gaps. The output schema likely covers return values, so the description's mention of 'str: A list...' is redundant. However, it lacks context on device dependencies or behavioral traits, making it minimally viable but not fully complete for safe agent use.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The baseline for such cases is 4, as the description appropriately avoids redundancy and focuses on other aspects, though it doesn't add extra semantic value beyond the schema.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all installed packages on the device'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_package_action_intents' or 'get_device_info', which could provide similar package-related information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'get_package_action_intents' for intents or 'list_files' for file listings. It lacks context about prerequisites, like needing device access, or exclusions, such as not filtering packages, which limits its helpfulness for an AI agent.

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