Describe a Jev pack

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool 'returns' information, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly say it has no side effects, require authentication, or describe any rate limits. The return content is listed, but deeper behavioral traits are left implied rather than stated.

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 sentences with zero filler. The main purpose and return contents are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the crucial usage rule is placed second. Every word 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does a solid job: it specifies what is returned, gives a usage trigger, and the parameter reference is well defined. It could be more explicit about the exact format or expected output structure, but given the low complexity, this is not a significant gap.

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% – the single parameter pack_id is already clearly documented in the schema as 'Pack id from list_packs, e.g. pr_audit.' The tool description itself adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies without penalty or bonus.

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 precise verb ('Return') and lists specific resources: JSON Schema state, Choice/Noul/Score questions, example state, and suggested workflow. This clearly distinguishes describe_pack from sibling tools like run_pack and list_packs, which execute and enumerate packs respectively.

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 second sentence gives an explicit directive: 'Always describe before run_pack when the schema is unfamiliar.' This directly tells the agent when to use this tool versus run_pack, which is the main alternative it would otherwise confuse with.

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