Run a Jev pack

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden and does well: it discloses the API key requirement, states that no side effects are run, and describes the return content including typed answers, probabilities/confidence, and usage. This goes well beyond the schema fields and gives an agent a clear behavioral model.

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 compact and front-loaded: the main action appears first, followed by return details, authentication requirement, and side-effect note. Every sentence adds meaningful information with no 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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs, return values, auth requirements, and side-effect profile, which is strong. It does not describe failure behavior when validation fails, but the essentials are sufficient for correct tool selection and invocation.

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 schema already provides 100% description coverage for both parameters, including pack_id sourced from list_packs and state matching describe_pack's schema. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific action ('Validate state and call TypeSafe System One (Jev) for that pack only') and identifies the resource (a pack). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by focusing on executing a single pack rather than listing or describing packs.

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 that pack only' implies usage on a single pack, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer run_pack over list_packs or describe_pack, nor does it give any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the API key. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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