pub_package

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states the tool fetches package details, implying a safe read-only operation, but doesn't describe network behavior, availability of metadata, error cases for invalid package names, or any rate limits. The description adds some value but doesn't fully disclose behavioral traits beyond the obvious read operation.

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 with no wasted words. It efficiently lists the tool's purpose and key outputs. It's appropriately concise without being under-specified. Could potentially front-load more specific detail but is otherwise well-structured.

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?

This is a straightforward single-parameter lookup tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema. The description lists what details are returned (version, score, dependencies, installation). For a simple lookup operation, the description is largely sufficient, though it doesn't mention error handling for nonexistent packages.

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%, so the schema already documents the single 'name' parameter with an example. The description's mention of 'package details' adds marginal context about what's returned, but the schema fully covers parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('pub.dev package details') along with the key types of data returned (version, score, dependencies, installation instructions). It's clear and distinct from siblings like flutter_docs and dart_docs, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling for differentiation.

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 its purpose—retrieving pub.dev package metadata—which is inferable from the tool name and description. However, it doesn't state when to use this versus alternative tools like flutter_docs or dart_docs, or when it would be inappropriate. The usage context must be inferred rather than stated explicitly.

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