Execution packet

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: the markdown return format, the full set of returned components, cone expansion behavior with defaults, and the failure mode ('not found' exit 5). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Every clause earns its place: the packet contents, usage timing, sibling differentiation, cone parameters and defaults, and error behavior. It is dense but well-structured, with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler.

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 read-only retrieval tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what the agent receives, when to fetch it, how cone modifies the result, and what happens on invalid ids. The only omitted detail is the exact markdown layout, which is not necessary for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that cone appends structural context over blocks edges, clarifying the relationship to deps, and specifying the unknown-id error behavior. It reinforces id's role implicitly through the error case and explains the cone parameters' effects.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Full execution packet for one work item as markdown' followed by the exact contents. It distinguishes itself from siblings by contrasting with next, show, and deps, so an agent can pick it without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Fetch this before starting or resuming any work item.' It also names alternatives and their scopes—next returns the bundle for a single proposal and show prints the bare record—so the agent knows exactly when not to use this tool.

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