gretl_package

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

With no annotations, the description partially covers behavior by noting the default GUI requirement. However, it omits details on side effects (e.g., file modifications), required permissions, or action-specific consequences for a complex tool with 14 parameters.

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 concise sentence that front- loads the actions. It avoids waste, but for a 14-parameter tool, more structure (e.g., bullet points) could improve scannability.

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?

For a tool with 14 parameters, no output schema, and moderate schema coverage, the description is too brief. It does not explain return values, prerequisites, or how to configure common parameters, leaving significant gaps.

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 57%, but the description adds no parameter details beyond listing actions. Flags like local, quiet, staging, verbose are not explained, missing an opportunity to add value over the 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 it manages Gretl packages using the native pkg command and lists the supported actions: install, query, run samples, unload, remove, index. This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like gretl_make_package.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings. There is no mention of alternatives or conditions for use; only a default GUI requirement is noted.

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