get_operation_package

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It details the content of the operation package but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. It adds value by specifying what is included but lacks 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 informative and front-loaded with the core purpose. It is slightly lengthy but each sentence adds value by enumerating package components. Could be marginally more concise, but overall well-structured.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (components of the package). Parameter documentation is complete via schema. The context signals indicate 2 parameters with full coverage. Description adds value for a moderately complex tool.

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 100% (both parameters have descriptions). The description adds minimal extra meaning: it mentions optional targeting for the 'procedure' parameter and refers to 'identify_appliance' for 'ref', but these are already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool retrieves a robot-executable operation package for an appliance, listing specific components (procedures, control map, verification signals, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on grounded knowledge for models.

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 implies use when needing grounded operational knowledge ('the grounded knowledge a general model hallucinates without'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_by_capability or identify_appliance. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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