List Packages

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the scope and version support, and 'lists' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly mention return format, whether system packages are included, or that no side effects occur. This is adequate for a simple list operation but lacks richer behavioral context.

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 focused sentence, front-loading the core behavior ('Lists all packages') and then adding the only relevant qualifier (Firebird 3.0+). Every word adds value, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter, simple enumeration tool, the description is effectively complete: it states exactly what is returned, the scope ('all packages'), and a version prerequisite. There is no output schema, but the description does enough to set expectations for the agent without needing elaborate detail.

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 zero parameters and the schema already covers 100% of them, so the description does not need to explain parameters. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately remains concise without blocking on parameter details.

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 ('Lists') and resource ('all packages in the database'), making the tool's core behavior immediately clear. It also implicitly distinguishes this enumeration tool from sibling tools like describe-package, which provide detailed information about a single package.

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 clearly tells the agent this returns a complete package listing and adds an important environment prerequisite ('available in Firebird 3.0+'). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but for a zero-parameter listing tool the intended context is fairly obvious.

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