get_package

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It clearly indicates a read operation ('Get'), but provides no detail on potential side effects, authentication needs, or error behavior. For a simple getter, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose, and it is front-loaded with the action verb.

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?

The tool is simple, has an output schema, and the schema covers all parameters. The description adequately conveys the core function, though slightly more context about the package source or the nature of 'detailed information' could have been provided. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a getter.

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 already fully documents both parameters (owner and repo) with examples, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'detailed information about a specific Pawn package'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_packages, which searches, and get_stats/get_languages, which target other aspects.

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 when a specific package is known, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings. The term 'specific' hints at the contrast with search_packages, but no direct exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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