GenPM

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and network behavior are covered. The description adds that the manifest is 'resolved' and that an install command is returned, which is useful context beyond annotations, but says nothing about errors, missing packages, or latency.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler, listing the returned artifacts compactly. Slightly dense but every clause earns its place.

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-param read with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately enumerates what is returned. It could mention how the returned install command is scoped or what absence of the package looks like, but it is complete enough to invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100% — both name and version are fully documented with pattern, example, default, and accepted forms. The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (a GenPM package's resolved manifest) and enumerates the returned content precisely. It is distinguishable from the sibling genpm_search, though it never names or contrasts with it explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource being fetched, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no contrast with genpm_search (search to find a package vs. info to inspect a known one), and no stated prerequisities.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a modest amount of context (what kinds of artifacts are searched), but says nothing about whether search is keyword vs semantic, ranking, or result shape.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Efficient, though the second sentence is more a prompt than guidance.

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?

A 4-parameter search tool with 25% schema coverage and no output schema needs the description to explain the filtering parameters and return format. The description covers neither, leaving the agent to guess at limit, hasMcp, and keywords.

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 only 25% — only 'query' is documented. Nothing in the description explains 'limit', 'hasMcp', or 'keywords' (maxItems 5), so the description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters. The parenthetical '(code + AI rules + MCP)' hints loosely at the hasMcp facet but does not clarify it.

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 ('Search') and resource ('GenPM registry') and clarifies what the results are: injectable architecture modules bundling code, AI rules, and MCP. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling genpm_info, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'Use before installing anything' gives a timing cue but no true when-vs-alternative guidance, and the sibling genpm_info is never mentioned. Usage is implied rather than specified.

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