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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description's 'Read-only' largely repeats that. It does add meaningful new context by disclosing the specific package set returned and the intended use.

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?

Three tight, front-loaded sentences with zero filler: verb+resource, the package list, the reason, and a clarifying note. Minor redundancy in 'Read-only' against the annotations keeps it from a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the exact packages. Combined with the no-parameter statement and use case, an agent has everything needed to call this no-arg read tool correctly.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this by stating it 'takes no title_id,' removing ambiguity for an agent used to title-scoped get_* tools.

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 (Get) and resource (@idosgames runtime npm packages), and enumerates exactly which packages (core, wallet, module-sdk, react, app-shell). An agent can distinguish this from the many other get_* siblings purely from the description.

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?

Gives clear applicability: install these packages so the base and modules resolve their imports, and explicitly notes it takes no title_id. It lacks an explicit when-not or named alternative, but no sibling performs this function, so the guidance is sufficient.

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