get_managed_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 reveals only that the return is JSON containing helpers/templates, but does not disclose read-only nature, whether it requires configuration, or any side effects. For a zero-parameter read tool with no annotations, this is thin.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the action, return format, and examples of contents. No wasted words.

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 a zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should ideally clarify read-only behavior or relationship to 'managed package' concept and sibling overwrite_managed_package. It hints at contents but leaves the object model unclear. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

Zero parameters, so baseline is 4 per rubric. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed and the tool returns the full package without filtering.

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 (Return) and resource (managed package file) and clarifies the return shape is JSON. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like get_automation or get_helper, and there is no mention of the sibling overwrite_managed_package, but the purpose is clear.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as get_automation or get_helper, nor any prerequisites. The description only states what it returns, leaving usage context to inference.

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