get_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 describes the return format (dict with status, package, message) and implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but does not explicitly state safety traits, auth needs, or potential side effects. The description adds some context but lacks thorough behavioral disclosure.

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 concise and well-structured with a purpose line, Args section, and Returns section. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 complexity (3 parameters, 1 required, no enums, no nested objects) and the presence of a described output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: parameters, defaults, return structure. It is complete for a retrieval tool and matches the context signals.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: name (package name), adom (ADOM name with default from env var or 'root'), and include_details (include policies and settings, default False). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 'Get detailed information about a policy package.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('policy package'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_packages (which lists all packages) and delete_package/update_package (which modify).

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 for retrieving details of a single package, but does not explicitly compare with alternatives like list_packages or mention when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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