pull

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the side effect (installs package and dependencies into ./.exchange/ in the working directory), the file-access requirement, that the path mode installs nothing, that verify re-runs the package's own check, and that verify is incompatible with path. These are exactly the operational constraints an agent needs before calling a tool that mutates the working directory.

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?

Front-loaded with the id format, then the two behavioral branches, then the verify caveat; every clause carries information. It is dense rather than padded, though the colon-heavy run-on phrasing in the second sentence slightly reduces scannability.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain returns, and it does: the install folder, the package description plus file list for '.', and file text for a named file. Gaps remain around the exact return type (string path vs. object), error cases, and whether an existing installation is overwritten.

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 already 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the version-pinning syntax and 'default: latest' for id, the distinction between path '.' (description plus file list) and a file name (file text), and the mutual exclusion of verify with path that the schema does not encode. Only minor details, such as overwrite behavior, are left out.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a package by id') plus the id syntax ('type/name', 'type/name@1.2.0', default latest). It also splits the tool's two distinct behaviors (install vs. inspect) so an agent can tell exactly which capability it is invoking, and it is clearly distinct from the 'search' and 'publish' siblings.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use rule: 'Use it to inspect a package before installing, or when you cannot read files,' and states the mode switch (path omitted = install, path present = no install). It does not explicitly route to the sibling tools (search/publish), so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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