sui_get_package

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns (modules, ABI, dependencies, bytecode), implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, nor does it cover rate limits, permissions, or other behavioral traits. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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 long. The first sentence efficiently states the core functionality and return components, while the second sentence adds valuable usage context. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return value (modules, ABI, dependencies, bytecode pointer). It covers the tool's purpose and typical use case. It does not mention error handling or prerequisites, but for a simple read tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. According to guidelines, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high.

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 verb ('Get'), the resource ('Move package by id'), and specifies the returned components (modules, ABI, dependencies, bytecode pointer). It also provides a use-case context ('starting point for any 'what does this contract expose?' question'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on objects or functions.

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 for when to use the tool ('starting point for contract exposure questions'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives. Given the sibling tools list includes related tools like sui_get_function and sui_get_object, explicit exclusions would improve the score.

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