harvest.pack

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the output format (flare-harvest-library v1 pack JSON with coverage scores) and the absence of a Bridge stanza, which is useful. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether anything is persisted), performance characteristics, or failure modes. The description is honest but incomplete for a tool that likely performs computation and returns a structured artifact.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The core action and output format are front-loaded, and the Bridge stanza exclusion is a useful differentiator. It could be slightly more structured by naming the sibling it is not, but it is appropriately sized.

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?

For a tool with 3 required parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It tells the agent what the tool produces and what it omits, but it does not explain how the 'goal' parameter affects the mix, what 'coverage scores' mean, or how this relates to harvest.compose. An agent could invoke it correctly from the schema, but might not know when to prefer it over a sibling.

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 three parameters. The description adds minimal parameter-level meaning: 'goal' is described as 'what the training library is for' in the schema, and the description's 'Compose a mix from a catalog' reinforces the role of 'catalog'. It does not add details about how 'name' is used or how 'goal' influences composition. Baseline 3 is appropriate because 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 states a specific verb ('Compose a mix from a catalog') and a concrete deliverable ('emit a flare-harvest-library v1 pack JSON with coverage scores'). It also notes the absence of a Bridge stanza, which distinguishes it from a potential sibling. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling tool or contrast with harvest.compose, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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: given a catalog of candidate items, compose a mix and emit a pack JSON. It does not state when to use this tool versus harvest.compose or harvest.search, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative routing. The sibling list includes harvest.compose, which likely overlaps, but the description does not clarify the boundary.

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