pack_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behavioral details: token budgeting, relevance ranking, and the heuristic 'Prefer entrypoints and paths matching focus keywords'. However, it does not describe output structure or potential side effects, which keeps it from a 5.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a relatively simple tool with a fully described 4-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and selection behavior. It could mention the exact structure of the markdown bundle, but it is largely complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage of all four parameters with clear descriptions. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, only reinforcing the role of 'focus' keywords. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the tool 'packs a token-budgeted markdown bundle of the most relevant source files for an LLM', with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings by implying this assembles context rather than just mapping or searching code.

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?

Provides explicit use cases: 'Use for PR review or task kickoff.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of a 5.

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