package_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the multi-step behavior by stating 'Runs build + cook + stage + package.' However, it omits side effects, prerequisites, output locations, or whether the process mutates the project, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 two short sentences, front-loads the main purpose, and includes the essential pipeline detail without wasted words. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the core action and pipeline, which is adequate for basic selection, but there is no output schema, no annotations, and no mention of what the packaged output looks like or what side effects occur. For a multi-stage packaging tool, this leaves notable gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters clearly. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the schema-heavy baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource, 'Package the project for distribution,' and clarifies the composite nature of the operation by listing the pipeline stages: build + cook + stage + package. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like build_cook_run or cook_content.

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 distribution' provides a clear use case, and the stage list implies a full end-to-end pipeline rather than a single build or cook step. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is reasonably clear.

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