check_package

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does not disclose what happens if the package is not installed, whether the operation is read-only or might have side effects, which package manager ecosystem applies (pip, npm, etc.), or any error behavior. This leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word is necessary; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 check with one parameter and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the input and expected result. However, it omits behavior for missing packages and the exact output structure, but the output schema likely covers that. Slight deduction for the unstated failure case.

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% — the single parameter 'package' is fully described with a type and example. The description text adds nothing beyond establishing that 'package' refers to a package name to check, so the 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 clearly states the action ('check') and the resource ('package'), plus the specific outcome ('return its version'). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like list_packages or install_package, which have different purposes.

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 description provides clear context: use this to verify if a specific package is installed and get its version. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is easy to infer from the stated purpose.

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