Get Integration Package

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Get details' with no additional context on return format, error handling, permissions, or rate limits. It essentially restates the tool's name, offering no deeper behavioral insight.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, containing no extraneous words.

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?

Given the simple nature of the tool (one required parameter, no output schema), the description adequately conveys the operation. It avoids over-explaining, and the context of siblings clarifies its role. Minor gap: no mention of what 'details' includes, but overall sufficient.

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 0%, but the description adds meaning by saying 'by Id,' clarifying that packageId is the identifier of the integration package. However, it does not provide additional details like format or constraints beyond what the schema already shows.

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 specific action: 'Get details of a single integration package by Id.' It identifies the resource (integration package), the operation (get details), and the unique identifier (Id), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_integration_packages.

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 implies usage: use when you have a packageId and need details of one package. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as 'use list_integration_packages to list all packages.'

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