packkit_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool returns JSON and describes the content, but it doesn't explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or has side effects. However, given the tool's name ('schema') and that it 'returns' data, it is clearly non-destructive. The description adds useful context about the range of presets and the consequence of not using it, which goes beyond a basic description.

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, information-dense sentence but remains highly readable. It starts with 'START HERE' to immediately signal priority, then states the action, the timing, and the rationale. Every word earns its place, with no fluff. It is well-structured and memorable.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, why to use it, when to use it, and the variety of options it returns. It also differentiates itself from siblings by positioning itself as the prerequisite step. The description is complete for its intended purpose.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4. The description does not mention parameters, which is fine because none exist. It adequately communicates the tool's function without needing to cover parameter details.

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 'Returns every Packkit option, preset, and shortcut alias as JSON.' It uses a specific verb ('returns') and a specific resource ('every Packkit option, preset, and shortcut alias'). The 'START HERE' directive and comparison with siblings (preview, scaffold) distinguish it as the discovery/entry-point tool.

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 explicitly says 'Call this before scaffolding' and explains why: 'so you pick a preset that matches what the user actually wants' and warns that 'guessing without reading them is the main cause of scaffolding the wrong shape.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance and implies that for scaffolding-related tasks, this tool should precede others.

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