get_package_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the behavior clearly: what data is returned (version, description, docs URL, repository, license) and mentions auto-detection of ecosystem. It does not cover rate limits or errors, but the behavior is transparent for a simple lookup tool.

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 concise, two sentences covering what the tool does and the supported ecosystems. No redundant information, each sentence adds value.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values. It covers the ecosystem parameter and its auto-detection. However, it does not mention any constraints (e.g., network dependency) or error cases, but for a simple metadata tool it is sufficiently complete.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by listing the supported ecosystems explicitly (Python via PyPI, JS/TS via npm, Rust via crates.io) and mentioning auto-detection, which goes beyond the enum values in the schema.

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 'gets metadata for a package' and lists specific metadata fields (version, description, docs URL, repository, license). It also specifies supported ecosystems (Python, JS/TS, Rust), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_package_docs.

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 for retrieving package metadata but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or when not to use. No exclusions or conditional guidance are provided, thus adequate but lacking differentiation.

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