rank_agent_packs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions ranking based on 'execution feedback metrics' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, how ranking is calculated, whether it's resource-intensive, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with 9 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

Single sentence that efficiently conveys core purpose without waste. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the main action and resource.

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 (9 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is incomplete. The output schema existence means return values don't need explanation, but the description fails to address parameter meanings, behavioral context, or usage guidelines. It's minimally adequate for purpose but leaves critical gaps for proper 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all 9 undocumented parameters. The description only vaguely references 'execution feedback metrics' and 'current context', which doesn't explain parameters like packCatalogPath, metricsPath, policyPath, respectPolicy, projectType, minExecutions, maxResults, includeUnscored, or includeDeprecated. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the bare 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 the action ('rank') and resource ('saved agent packs') with the mechanism ('using execution feedback metrics') and goal ('to prioritize recommendations for the current context'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_agent_packs' by emphasizing ranking rather than listing, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'recommend_project_agents' which might have overlapping purpose.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'recommend_project_agents' or 'materialize_recommended_agents'. The description mentions 'current context' but doesn't specify what contexts trigger usage or prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than explicitly defined.

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