agent_exec_packet

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only states it builds a packet without execution. Does not disclose whether the packet is stored, side effects, permission requirements, or what constitutes a valid packet. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and key differentiator. No unnecessary words, every part 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?

With 7 parameters, an output schema, and many related sibling tools, the description is too brief. It does not explain what a 'dispatch packet' is, how it fits into the workflow, or what the output contains. Leaves the agent needing to infer context from tool names.

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 baseline is 3. Description does not add any parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Schema descriptions are adequate, so no extra value needed.

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 'Build an Agent Exec dispatch packet' with the specific verb 'Build' and resource 'Agent Exec dispatch packet'. The phrase 'without invoking execution' distinguishes it from sibling tools that cause execution (e.g., dispatch_handoff, chain_pm_then_agent).

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?

Implied usage as a preparatory step ('without invoking execution'), but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like handoff_contract or when to avoid it. No exclusion criteria or context provided.

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