sodax_relay_get_packet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's mention of fetch and return shape adds value but is minimal. No additional behavioral traits like rate limits or error details are disclosed beyond what annotations provide.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose and clearly stating the return shape. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 is simple, but the description introduces a potential inconsistency: it implies connSn is the primary identifier and required, yet the schema does not list connSn in required. This could mislead an agent about parameter necessity. No output schema, but return shape is described.

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 parameter descriptions are already detailed. The description only reiterates the connSn field and mentions numeric coercion, which is already in the schema. No significant addition beyond the structured data.

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 fetches a single relay packet by its connection serial number, with a specific outcome defined. It distinguishes itself from siblings like sodax_relay_get_transaction_packets by emphasizing 'single' packet retrieval.

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 a single packet needs to be fetched by conn_sn, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or provide when-not scenarios. Context from sibling tools clarifies differentiation, but the description lacks explicit guidance.

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