inspect_package

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the operation is static and does not import, build, run, or modify code, which is strong transparency. It goes beyond the schema by clarifying the non-destructive nature and the type of metadata returned.

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?

Single sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the verb and resource, then efficiently packs selection method, return content, and safety constraints. Every phrase 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?

The description covers purpose, selection, return types, and safety, which is sufficient for a read-only inspection tool. It doesn't mention error cases or what happens if both parameters are provided, but the output schema exists and the tool's scope is narrow, so completeness is high.

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 0% and parameters have no descriptions, but the description names both parameters and explains that either package_name or relative_path selects the package. This adds meaningful semantic context beyond the raw schema, though it doesn't address precedence or exclusivity.

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 the tool inspects a single package, selected by either package_name or relative_path. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on static inspection of one package rather than scanning, dependency analysis, or diagnostics.

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 when you need package metadata without executing code, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance. The context of sibling tools helps, but the description itself lacks direct exclusions.

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