get_pack_info

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden. '读取' plus the diagnostic clause (检测常见问题) signals a non-mutating inspection operation, which is useful, but it never states read-only status explicitly, behavior on an invalid path, or how problems are reported.

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?

One compact sentence that leads with the operation and then lists the outputs; no filler. It could be marginally better structured by separating the diagnostic clause from the field list.

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 single-parameter read tool this is nearly complete: the description enumerates the returned content, which compensates for the absent output schema. Only the lack of any error/permission behavior keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is only one parameter (pack_dir) and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema documenting it as 整合包根目录路径. The description adds no further parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource (读取整合包配置信息) and enumerates the returned data (MC 版本、加载器、模组数量、常见问题检测). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like create_pack or check_pack_compatibility, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 已有整合包 implies it operates on an existing pack, so the usage context is implied. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as check_pack_compatibility, even though 'detect common problems' overlaps with that sibling's likely scope.

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