read_packmeta

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Read' implies a non-mutating operation and the source types are stated, but there is no explicit disclosure of side effects, permissions, error behavior, or return semantics.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes directly to identifying the file read and the accepted source forms.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not explain what is returned or how missing/malformed pack.mcmeta files are handled, and no output schema or annotations compensate for those gaps.

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 100%, and the schema already documents packPath as the path to a resource pack directory or .zip file. The description repeats that accepted-form distinction but adds no further parameter constraints or syntax details, so 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 uses a specific verb and resource: read pack.mcmeta metadata from a resource pack directory or zip file. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as validate_rp_structure or get_rp_info.

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 by naming the target file and accepted source types (directory or zip), but it does not state when to choose this tool over alternatives or when it should not be used. The guidance is therefore only implicit.

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