github_packages_get_package_for_user

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the fact it retrieves a package. It fails to mention authentication requirements, error handling, or the nature of the return value. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden, which it does not meet.

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 extremely concise (4 words), which is efficient but lacks structure. It does not list parameters or provide usage context. While not verbose, it is minimally adequate for a simple retrieval tool.

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 output schema and annotations, the description should clarify what information is returned. It does not, leaving the agent to guess the response format. The simplicity of the tool partly excuses this, but completeness is lacking.

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 schema provides parameter names and types, but descriptions are trivial (just the parameter names). The tool description adds no meaning for parameters like 'package_type' (valid values) or 'package_name' (format). Schema coverage is 100% but with no added 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 action ('Get') and the resource ('a package for a user'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_package_for_authenticated_user' by specifying 'for a user'. However, it does not elaborate on what constitutes a package or the context of use.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_package_for_org, list_packages). No prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions are mentioned. The description is purely declarative.

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