gretl_make_package

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only notes that by default the tool requires opening the generated workflow in the visible Gretl GUI. It fails to mention other important behaviors such as side effects on files, permission requirements, or error handling, which are critical for a 12-parameter mutation tool.

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, directly states the main action and a key default behavior. It is front-loaded and contains no superfluous information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's complexity (12 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It only covers the basic purpose and one behavioral aspect, leaving gaps about workflow, side effects, and parameter interactions.

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 description coverage is 50%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what is in the schema. The mention of 'by default requires GUI' loosely relates to parameters like requireGui and displayInGretl but does not explicitly clarify them.

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 tool builds a Gretl function package using the native makepkg command, and specifies the output formats (.gfn or .zip). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'gretl_package', leaving potential ambiguity about which to 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gretl_package or gretl_run_script. It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or conditions to avoid using it.

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