get_package_status

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is already covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context such as response format, pagination, required permissions, rate limits, or error behavior. It simply repeats the endpoint, leaving the agent without additional transparency beyond the annotations.

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 line, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It provides no substantive content beyond the endpoint path, failing to earn its place as a useful description. True conciseness would include a brief statement of functionality, which is entirely absent here.

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 tool has no output schema and a minimal description, so the agent must rely on the name and parameter schema alone. There is no explanation of the return value, use case, or how this fits into the broader API. This is inadequate for a tool with multiple similarly named siblings.

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 both 'issuen' and 'dry_run' already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameters, but the high schema coverage means the baseline of 3 is appropriate even without parameter details in the description.

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 is merely the HTTP endpoint 'GET /api/v2/package/status', which restates the tool name without explaining what the tool does in plain language. The verb 'get' and resource 'package status' are implied by the name and path, but there is no explicit statement of the operation's purpose or how it differs from similar tools like get_delivery_status or get_ext_status.

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 whatsoever on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like get_delivery_status, get_ext_status, and get_issue_stat have overlapping names and purposes, and the description does not clarify conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions for using this tool.

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