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 that the tool works from prior runs, enriches with specific items, and supports truncation. However, it does not mention if it modifies state, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The term 'assemble' suggests creation, but behavioral traits beyond that are limited.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description provides key output contents (YAML snippets, request/response excerpts, etc.) and mentions truncation behavior. It lacks details on where the bundle is saved or returned, but for a tool with 7 fully described parameters, it is reasonably complete.

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% with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds context about NAZ-414 and truncation budgets but does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it assembles a remediation bundle (NAZ-414) from prior run artifacts, specifically failing entries enriched with YAML snippets, request/response excerpts, captures lineage, and rerun hints. It also mentions truncation budgets for context-limited agents, distinguishing its purpose from sibling tools.

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 implies usage after a run (from prior run's artifacts) and for context-limited agents (via truncation budgets), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like tarn_fix_plan or tarn_report. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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