get_package_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool reads from config.ini and requires no device connection, implying safety. Missing details about error behavior if config or hostname missing, but overall it is honest and clear about its behavior.

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 with a clear purpose statement up front, followed by a structured Args list. Every sentence provides necessary information without 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, no enums, output schema exists), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, parameters, and that it's safe. It lacks error conditions but is generally sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 explain parameters. The Args section provides meaning: hostname must exist, model includes an example, config_path default path. This adds value beyond the schema, though could be more detailed on constraints.

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 explicitly states 'Get package file name and expected hash for a specific device model.' It clearly identifies the action (get) and the resource (package info). It also notes 'No device connection required,' distinguishing it from tools that require connectivity.

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 explains the function and parameters but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., check_remote_packages, install_package). It mentions no device connection, which hints at appropriate contexts, but lacks clear when/not-to-use advice.

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