get_package_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the FindFirstObject-over-loaded-UPackages mechanism and the resulting not-found behavior for unloaded packages, plus the return shape. Missing only details like what happens with ambiguous paths, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loads the key constraint (ALREADY LOADED) before the field list, then routes to alternatives and closes with the return shape. The embedded rhetorical questions are slightly redundant with the explicit field listing but do add framing without bloating the text.

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 read-only inspection tool whose annotations carry the safety profile, the description covers purpose, the critical loaded-only pitfall, sibling alternatives, and the full return shape in lieu of an output schema. An agent has everything needed to invoke it 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% and the single package_path parameter is already documented in the schema, including the long-package-name format and loaded-UPackage matching. The description restates that constraint but adds no format or edge-case semantics beyond the schema, 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 (inspect) and resource (a package already loaded in memory) and enumerates exactly what it returns: long name, is_dirty flag, and contained UObjects with classes. An agent can distinguish it from get_asset_by_name and list_dirty_packages without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly provides the when-not (a package on disk but not loaded reports as not found) and names two concrete alternatives: get_asset_by_name / resolve_asset_by_name for on-disk existence and list_dirty_packages for a global dirty sweep. Nothing is left to inference.

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