get_package

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Get details', which implies a read operation but does not explicitly confirm it is non-destructive, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., model must be open), error handling for missing packages, or the structure of the returned data. The lack of disclosure is a significant gap given zero annotation coverage.

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 superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices important contextual information, though conciseness itself is well-handled.

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 tool has two required parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description does not specify what 'details' are returned, how model_id and package_ref interact, or provide examples. An agent would lack crucial information about expected inputs and outputs, making the description incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 but no descriptions, and schema coverage is 0%. The description adds some meaning by clarifying that package_ref can be a ref, code, or name, but it does not explain model_id at all. With both parameters required, the description should compensate for the schema's silence but only partially addresses one parameter.

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 retrieves details of a single package using package_ref, and mentions it can be identified by ref, code, or name. This distinguishes it from list_packages, which lists all packages. However, it does not elaborate on what 'details' includes or how it differs from other get_* tools, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'Get details of one package' implies using it when a specific package's details are needed, but it does not mention when not to use it, nor does it reference list_packages or other sibling tools for alternative scenarios.

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