Spy Add Package Blocks

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior on its own, but it only states 'Make blocks'. It does not mention whether the operation mutates the project, whether it is reversible, whether an open project is required, or what happens with invalid module names. This leaves meaningful behavioral uncertainty for an agent.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main action and immediately includes the key prerequisite, so every word earns its place.

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 only one parameter and the presence of an output schema, the definition covers the basic call shape. Yet it leaves gaps around preconditions, side effects, and how 'making blocks'integrates with the broader spy_ workflow (e.g., needing an open project). It is minimally viable but not fully self-sufficient.

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 schema offers only a bare string parameter named 'module' with 0% description coverage. The description adds that it should be an already-installed module and that standard library modules are valid, which gives the agent useful grounding for the parameter. However, it does not provide examples, format expectations, or differentiation between package name and module path.

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 'Make blocks for an already-installed module' names a concrete action and resource, and the 'already-installed' qualifier distinguishes it from installation-related siblings like spy_install_package. It is not a tautology and gives a clear sense of the operation, though 'blocks' is somewhat domain-specific and not fully elaborated.

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 phrase 'already-installed module' establishes a prerequisite for use, and 'stdlib modules work too' clarifies a common edge case. However, it does not explicitly direct the agent to a specific sibling (e.g., spy_remove_package_blocks) or state when not to use the tool, so the guidance is mostly implied rather than explicit.

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