opkg_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation through 'Show', but it doesn't explicitly state that it has no side effects, what happens if the package isn't found, or whether it requires an installed package or updated package index. The description adds minimal behavioral transparency beyond the tool's name.

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, concise sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse and acting as a clear summary.

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 low complexity (one required parameter, simple read operation), and the schema fully covers the parameter. The description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool, though it could be more explicit about what 'detailed information' includes. Given the simplicity, it is reasonably 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% (one parameter, package_name, described as 'Package name to get info for') and the description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter's name and purpose. Baseline of 3 applies since the schema fully documents the parameter.

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's action ('Show') and resource ('detailed information about a package'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like opkg_list which list packages. However, 'detailed information' is somewhat vague—it doesn't specify whether this includes version, size, dependencies, etc.

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 provides no usage context or guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as opkg_list or opkg_upgradable. There is no mention of prerequisites, intended use cases, or when not to use it.

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