pack

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that add/remove write a lockfile ('.kit-mcp-packs.json') and gives behavioral hints for actions. Could elaborate more on side effects (e.g., read/write behavior), but adequate.

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 paragraph but well-structured: general function, then action list with explanations, then trigger examples. It is concise and front-loaded with key information. Minor improvement: could be broken into bullet points for clarity.

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 the tool has 6 parameters and complex action logic, the description covers actions, triggers, and side effects. No output schema exists, so completeness is adequate. It provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 83% (5 of 6 parameters described). The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining each action's purpose and context, such as 'action=list catálogo com contagens'. This helps agents understand parameter usage beyond enum labels.

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 states the tool manages 'Content Packs' and explicitly lists six actions (list, info, resolve, doctor, add, remove) with brief explanations. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'install' and 'sync' by focusing on pack-level management.

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 usage context by explaining when to use each action (e.g., 'resolve mostra o fecho de dependências') and lists common triggers ('instalar pack', 'remover pack'). However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or compare to alternatives like 'install'.

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