iyke_pkg_trust_status

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

With no annotations, the description fully explains the return states and their conditions, plus the implication of needs_approval triggering a structured error. This is good behavioral context, though it could mention if the tool is read-only or requires permissions.

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, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the purpose, then lists and explains return values, and finally provides actionable context for one state. Every sentence 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the return values, their meanings, and downstream effects. It is complete for a status-checking tool.

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 single parameter pkg_id is not described beyond its name. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but only implies its purpose through the tool's function. Adding a brief clarification like 'the package identifier' would improve 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 it retrieves the trust state for a single installed pkg and enumerates four possible return values with explanations. It distinguishes from siblings like iyke_pkg_trust_list, which likely handles multiple packages.

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 explains that this tool is for checking trust status of one package and provides context on when to use it (e.g., identifying why a package might be blocked). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the sibling context implies iyke_pkg_trust_list for bulk checks.

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