get_packet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with these. The description adds the 'by ID or slug' lookup detail but does not disclose failure behavior (e.g., match exactly one packet) or other nuances beyond what the schema already provides. No contradiction, but little added transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the verb, resource, and lookup mechanism with zero redundant words. 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?

For a read-only tool with a rich parameter schema and clear annotations, the description is mostly complete. It omits return-value details (as there is no output schema), but the verb 'Read' implies returning the packet record, and all parameter behaviors are covered in the schema. Some nuances, like server-flag dependency for includePrivate, are left to the schema, which is acceptable.

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 description coverage is 100%, with detailed parameter descriptions for id, direction, includePrivate, and includeMarkdown. The description's 'by ID or slug' merely paraphrases the id parameter and adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 a specific verb ('read') and resource ('packet'), and specifies the lookup key ('by ID or slug'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_packets (enumeration) and get_brief (different resource). It is a precise, minimal definition of the tool's purpose.

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 use when fetching a single packet by identifier, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as list_packets or get_brief. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, leaving the choice to the agent's reasoning.

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