check_package

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the purpose but does not explain how the check is performed (e.g., database lookup, API call), what 'potentially hallucinated' means precisely, or any side effects. This lack of detail limits the agent's ability to anticipate 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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the tool's 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 lack of an output schema, the description should specify what the return value looks like (e.g., boolean, details object). It also fails to mention potential errors, performance characteristics, or any prerequisites. The tool is simple, but the description omits critical information about the output format.

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 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds context about the purpose but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Check' and the resource 'package name', with a specific purpose: determining legitimacy or potential hallucination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'sbom_check_hallucinations' by focusing on a single package name.

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 it (when checking a package name for hallucination) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or comparisons with similar tools like 'scan_packages' or 'sbom_check_hallucinations'.

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