crate_info

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. The description indicates a read-only lookup, which is clear, but it does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond that (e.g., error handling for non-existent crates, idempotency, rate limits, or permission requirements). Minimal but adequate for a simple lookup.

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 that immediately states the tool's purpose and included output fields. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Look up' and contains no extraneous information.

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 (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is almost complete. It lists the output fields, which compensates for the lack of an output schema. However, it could mention the response format (e.g., JSON object) or provide a brief example of the returned data.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'name', with a clear description and examples. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Look up detailed information') and the resource ('SuperInstance crate'), listing specific fields returned (name, version, description, repo, docs, role). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fleet_search (search) or conservation_check (validate).

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 that this tool is for retrieving detailed metadata about a specific crate by name, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings (e.g., when you already know the crate name vs when you need to search for crates). No when-not or alternative guidance provided.

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