rate_package

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. 'Get' implies a safe read operation, but no explicit mention of side effects, permissions, or rate limits. Adequate but not explicit.

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?

Description is three paragraphs, front-loaded with main purpose. Each sentence adds value, though could be slightly more concise. No wasted 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 complexity of rating multiple dimensions, the description outlines key areas. Output schema exists, so return values need not be covered. Complete enough for an AI agent.

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%, so schema already documents both parameters (package_name, ecosystem) with enums and examples. Description adds no parameter details beyond listing dimensions, which doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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?

Clearly states it gets a comprehensive quality rating for a package, listing specific dimensions. Sibling tools (e.g., create_llms_txt, get_latest_version) are distinct, so no confusion.

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?

Clear context for using this tool to rate a package. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the sibling tools are sufficiently different that usage guidance is implied.

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