pack

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors like determinism, token budgeting, AST awareness, and provenance manifest generation. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, any authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects, leaving some uncertainty.

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 sentence that efficiently packs many details. It is front-loaded with the main action. While slightly long, every phrase adds value, making it effective without being overly verbose.

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?

The description explains the tool's purpose and key behaviors but lacks details about the output structure (no output schema) and does not describe the provenance manifest contents. For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, more details on results and usage context would improve completeness.

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 high (86%), so parameters are mostly documented. The description adds holistic context (e.g., that the pack is token-budgeted gives meaning to 'budget'), but does not detail individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb (Build), resource (context pack), and key characteristics (deterministic, token-budgeted, AST-aware, provenance manifest). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'verify' by focusing on building a pack.

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 implies usage for building context packs from repository paths or queries but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any when-not-to-use conditions. The distinction from 'verify' is not addressed.

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