pack_fluent_app

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

The annotation already marks the tool as idempotent. The description adds that it does not require authentication and that it requires a prior build, which is useful behavioral context. It does not detail side effects like file overwrite, but idempotency provides some assurance.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. No unnecessary words.

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 simplicity (3 optional params, no output schema, idempotent annotation), the description covers purpose, prerequisites, auth requirements, and output usage, making it adequately 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?

All 3 parameters have descriptions in the schema, so the description is not required to add param details. It does not, but the schema is self-sufficient.

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?

Description clearly states the tool packages a built Fluent app into a zip artifact. It identifies the specific action (package), resource (built app), and output (zip for installation), distinguishing it from siblings like build or deploy.

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?

States the prerequisite of a prior build via build_fluent_app and indicates the zip is for manual installation, implying an alternative to automated deployment. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with deploy_fluent_app or specify 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.