pack_get

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about read-only semantics, failure modes for an invalid or missing job_id, or permissions. The phrase 'Paths and summary' does hint at the returned content, which is the one piece of behavioral value here.

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?

It is a single short fragment with no wasted words, but the terseness crosses into under-specification: a fragment rather than a sentence, and nothing front-loaded about what the tool returns or requires.

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 an undocumented one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the agent needs to know what a pack is, what job_id refers to, and what 'paths' means. None of that is provided, so the definition is not complete enough to invoke confidently.

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 0% and the single parameter job_id has no title, description, or format information. The description never mentions job_id or explains that it identifies the job whose pack is being fetched, so the meaning of the only required input must be inferred.

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 phrase 'Paths and summary of an existing pack' indicates a read of a pack resource, but it is a noun fragment with no explicit verb and never defines what a 'pack' is. An agent cannot tell from this how it differs from the sibling tools pack_prompt, pack_submit, and pack_create beyond guessing that 'existing' means retrieval.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no condition selecting this over pack_prompt or pack_create, and no prerequisite stated (for example, that a pack must already have been created for the job). The only hint is the word 'existing', which is too weak to route an agent reliably.

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