edict_package

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool creates a SkillPackage with specific components (interface metadata, verification info, checksum, embedded WASM), which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, error handling, or performance characteristics that would be important for a packaging 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by input and output details. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying the tool's role and data flow, with no redundant or vague language, making it efficiently 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?

Given the complexity of packaging with multiple inputs and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it explains the purpose, inputs, and output structure. However, it could improve by detailing the SkillPackage JSON format or error cases, as there's no output schema to fall back on. It compensates well but has minor gaps.

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 all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning that 'ast' and 'wasm' are from edict_compile, but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema specifies (e.g., format details or constraints). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Package a compiled Edict module + WASM binary') and the resource ('into a portable SkillPackage'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like edict_compile (which produces the inputs) and edict_deploy (which likely uses the output), by focusing on the packaging step in the workflow.

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 provides clear context by specifying that inputs come from edict_compile ('same one sent to edict_compile' and 'returned by edict_compile'), guiding when to use this tool in the pipeline. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as how it differs from edict_export or edict_import_skill.

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