tarn_pack_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses support for truncation budgets and the general assemble action. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., no modifications), auth needs, or failure modes when artifacts are missing.

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?

Two sentences: first front-loads the core purpose and contents, second adds a feature and equivalent command. No unnecessary words, efficient and clear.

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?

The description explains the what and high-level how, but lacking details on output shape (no output schema), prerequisites (must have prior run artifacts), and parameter interaction. With 7 parameters and no annotations, more context on error handling or typical usage would be beneficial.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond parameter names by contextualizing 'failing entries' (failed param), 'truncation budgets' (max_chars), and 'prior run' (run_id). This helps an agent understand what the parameters influence.

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 'assemble a remediation bundle (NAZ-414) from a prior run's artifacts', specifying the verb (assemble), resource (remediation bundle), and provenance (prior run). It lists contents (failing entries, YAML snippets, etc.) and differentiates from siblings like tarn_run or tarn_inspect.

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?

Implied usage for creating a bundle from prior run artifacts, and mentions truncation budgets for context-limited agents. But no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tarn_get_run_artifacts or tarn_report, and no when-not-to-use conditions.

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