packkit_preview

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description bears full responsibility. It clearly states 'without writing anything' and 'side-effect free', indicating a non-destructive, read-only operation. However, it could explicitly confirm that it only reads data and does not modify state.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and behavior ('Show the project structure...without writing anything'). The second sentence provides usage guidance. Every phrase adds value.

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 3 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and no annotations. The description sufficiently covers the tool's function (preview file tree and stack summary), its non-destructive nature, and when to use it. No major gaps remain.

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 for parameters is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra context beyond the schema (e.g., data types, constraints, or examples). It mentions 'name', 'preset', 'options' but no additional semantics.

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 uses specific verbs ('Show', 'check', 'prefer it over scaffolding') and clearly states the tool produces a full file tree and stack summary without writing anything. It uniquely identifies the tool as a dry-run preview, distinguishing it from scaffolding.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('to check layout before committing', 'show the user what they are about to get') and when not to ('prefer it over scaffolding to a throwaway directory'). Also highlights that it is cheap and side-effect free, guiding preference.

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