read-pack

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It extensively discloses key behaviors: off-line and Node-only, reads files rather than live world, writes heavy per-scene data to payload files (referenced by placeablesPath), pages results to fit response cap, has an index mode, and handles different Foundry eras. It also mentions stripping cli pack artifacts and discovering standalone tile images. This is a thorough behavioral disclosure for a complex tool.

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 long but appropriately so for a tool of this complexity. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose in the first sentence, then progressively details behaviors, paging, and usage. Each sentence adds necessary context—off-line nature, era detection, extraction scope, payload files, index mode. It could be slightly more concise, but it is well-organized and not redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain what the tool returns. It does so clearly: returns totalScenes, a page of scenes, nextOffset for paging, and in index mode a lightweight list. It also explains the payload file mechanism and the rewrite hints. Given the tool's complexity and the absence of structured output metadata, the description covers everything an agent needs to call and process results correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds operational meaning beyond the schema: it explains the purpose of index mode for survey and dedup, how offset and sceneLimit interact for paging, and that destRoot triggers rewrite hints. It clarifies the role of modulePath and packName in the import flow. This adds real value, though the schema already describes each parameter, so not a 5.

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 ('Read'), a specific resource ('Tom-Cartos-style Foundry SCENE-PACK MODULE'), and its purpose ('return its era-normalized documents for import'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like create-scene by emphasizing it is off-line and reads files, not the live world. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: it is for reading a pack from disk in an import workflow, explicitly noting it is 'OFF-LINE and Node-only' and 'never the live world', which differentiates it from live-world tools. It also provides usage flow (index first, then page, then pass placeablesPath to create-scene). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools to use instead, only downstream steps, so it falls short of a 5.

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