Describe Package

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the return includes header and body source, but does not state if the operation is read-only, requires permissions, or has side effects. The description lacks transparency about error behavior (e.g., missing package) and system impact.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. No extraneous information, every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description partially compensates by mentioning header and body source. However, it lacks details on other possible return fields, format, or error handling, which would be needed for full completeness. Contextual completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 100% (parameter described as 'Nombre del paquete a describir'). The description adds value by specifying the output includes header and body source, which is not in the schema. This clarifies the parameter's impact beyond just a name, improving semantic clarity.

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 obtains detailed information about a specific package, including its header and body source. It uses a specific verb ('obtiene información') and resource ('paquete específico'), and distinguishes from siblings like list-packages or describe-table by focusing on a singular package with internal details.

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 implies usage when detailed info on a single package is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list-packages for listing, describe-table for tables). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite guidance is provided, leaving ambiguity among siblings.

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