github_packages_get_package_for_authenticated_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, what happens if the package does not exist (error handling), authentication requirements, or rate limits. The lack of transparency could lead to incorrect invocation assumptions.

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, direct sentence with no extraneous words. It is efficient but could be expanded slightly to include critical context without losing conciseness. The front-loading is acceptable.

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 lack of an output schema, the description should explain what the return value represents (e.g., package details, metadata). It does not. Additionally, the two parameters are not elaborated, and there is no mention of required permissions or scope. Overall, the description is insufficient for a complete understanding.

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?

Although the input schema has 100% description coverage, the descriptions are tautological (just repeat parameter names). The tool description adds no further meaning to `package_type` (e.g., valid values like 'npm', 'docker') or `package_name` (format). The agent must rely solely on the schema, which provides no semantic value.

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 the verb ('Get') and resource ('a package'), and specifies scope ('for the authenticated user'), which distinguishes it from package tools scoped to org or other users. However, it does not elaborate on what constitutes a 'package' in the GitHub context (e.g., Docker, npm), which could be clarified further.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `github_packages_get_package_for_organization` or `github_packages_get_package_for_user`. The description does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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