recommend_package

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it enumerates the response contents (package, reasoning, install line, verified quickstart, docs links, alternatives), which tells the agent exactly what it will get back and that the quickstart is verified to run. It stops short of noting confidence limits or what happens for unrecognized tasks.

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?

Front-loads the action and input format in the first clause, then lists outputs compactly. Dense but every element (examples, return fields) adds usable information; slightly long single sentence.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description appropriately covers return values in detail, and the single simple parameter needs little explanation. Missing only guidance on how the agent should phrase ambiguous or multi-part tasks.

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 0%, but the single parameter is self-descriptive and the description compensates by giving three concrete example task strings, which conveys the expected granularity and phrasing better than the bare schema does.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Pick') plus a concrete resource ('the PQBlocks package') and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings like list_packages and get_snippet by framing input as a plain-language task. The parenthetical examples ('sign JWTs with ML-DSA', 'solve a QUBO') make the scope unambiguous.

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?

States the triggering condition clearly: use this when the task is expressed in plain words rather than a known package name. It does not explicitly name siblings like list_packages as the alternative for browsing, so the routing logic is implied rather than spelled out.

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