package_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description has the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the high-level action and doesn't mention that packaging copies files to an output folder, includes fonts/linked files, or creates a report, leaving side effects and outputs unclear.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant words. It is appropriately concise for the information it conveys.

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's complexity (packaging with multiple options) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain the packaging concept, what the output looks like, or any caveats, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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?

All four parameters have descriptions in the schema, so the description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate for full schema coverage.

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 a clear action ('package') and a specific resource ('document') in the context of print production, distinguishing it from export or info tools. However, it doesn't elaborate on what packaging entails, which is a minor gap.

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 phrase 'for print production' implies when to use the tool, but there's no explicit comparison to alternatives like preflight_document or export_pdf, nor any exclusions. It provides context but not full guidance.

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