carrel_pack

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful traits beyond the schema: which file types get text extracted (text, pdf, office, ebook) and that output combines a tree with contents. It omits whether the operation is read-only/non-destructive, how the byte budget affects output, and any permission or rate considerations.

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 with the action first and the output description second; no filler. It is arguably too terse for a 9-parameter tool, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 9-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the pack result structure and the read-only nature more fully. The file-type support and tree+text composition are covered, but an agent still can't tell what the returned document looks like or how the byte budget truncates it.

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%, so each of the 9 parameters is already documented, including the format enum, globs, max_bytes, and tree_only. The description adds only the high-level notion of tree-plus-text, which implies how tree_only and format relate, but nothing about query/root/top semantics.

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 (pack) and resource (file or directory), plus the concrete output shape: file tree plus extracted text of supported files. It doesn't name or contrast any sibling (carrel_search, carrel_inspect, carrel_convert), so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus carrel_search (query-based retrieval), carrel_inspect, or carrel_convert. 'LLM-ready context' weakly implies the use case, but no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives are stated.

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