get_pack

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Open a pack' suggests retrieval, but does not clearly state whether this is read-only, what the response contains, whether any state changes occur, or how 'include its prompts' affects the result. The behavioral picture is incomplete.

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, tightly packed sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and adds the key optional behavior right after, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It omits behavior of the 'include_prompt_text' parameter, expected return structure, and any guidance about when to use this vs. sibling tools. An agent would likely need additional clarification to invoke it correctly in varied contexts.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully explains that 'id' can be a slug or exact title and that prompts can optionally be included. However, it does not explain the distinct 'include_prompt_text' parameter, leaving one of three parameters semantically underexplained.

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 identifies a specific action ('Open') and resource ('a pack'), and adds addressing details ('by slug or exact title'). It is not a tautology and helps distinguish this from sibling tools like get_prompt or list_packs, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 the tool is for opening a single pack, optionally pulling in its prompts, which gives some usage context. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like list_packs, get_prompt, or search_prompts, and no exclusion criteria.

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