clone_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 of behavioral transparency. It states 'Creates a copy' indicating a write operation, but it does not disclose important behaviors such as whether existing packages with the same name are overwritten, if the operation is idempotent, or any required permissions. The return format is described, but side effects are understated.

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 reasonably concise and well-structured with a clear docstring format (Args, Returns, Example). It includes only necessary information without redundancy. However, the example is a bit lengthy but adds value, so not penalized heavily.

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 tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema in the description, the context is fairly complete. It covers the function, all parameters, return structure, and an example. It could improve by mentioning preconditions (e.g., the source package must exist) or error behavior, but overall it is adequate.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description's parameter details ('adom: ADOM name', 'package: Source package name', 'new_name: Name for the cloned package') add essential meaning beyond the schema. While concise, these descriptions compensate for the lack of schema annotations, meeting the baseline expectation for 0% coverage.

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 'Clone a policy package. Creates a copy of an existing package with all its policies.' It uses a specific verb ('clone') and resource ('policy package'), and it distinguishes from siblings like create_package or delete_package by specifying that it duplicates an existing package.

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 when to use this tool (when you want to duplicate a package), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as create_package. No guidance on prerequisites or comparisons is provided, so usage guidance is only implied.

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