get_package_info

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates that the tool retrieves metadata without side effects, and lists the exact pieces of metadata returned. This is transparent for a read-only operation, though it does not mention error conditions or pagination.

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: two sentences covering purpose and parameter, with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the core action and easily scannable.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description enumerates the returned metadata fields, which is sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect. It does not specify the exact structure (e.g., JSON keys), but given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate.

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 input schema only defines 'package' as a string with no description, yielding 0% schema coverage. The description compensates by adding context: 'Package name as returned by list_packages()'. This provides valuable usage guidance beyond the raw schema.

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 'Get metadata for a package' and enumerates specific items (description, GitHub URL, docs URL, install commands, available documentation sections). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like list_packages (which returns package names) and fetch_latest_docs (which fetches documentation).

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 provides a usage hint by noting that the 'package' argument should come from 'list_packages()'. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative siblings like get_doc_section or get_function_source.

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