get_packet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses output format behavior (JSON, markdown, base64 PDF) and a prerequisite (PDF worker), which is valuable. However, it does not mention the redaction behavior controlled by 'redact' and 'redact_accounts' parameters, nor does it state whether the operation is read-only.

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, well-structured, and front-loaded. Two sentences deliver the core purpose, default behavior, and parameter-specific outputs without any wasted words or repetition of schema details.

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 seven parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main usage scenarios (default run, formats) but omits important contextual details such as redaction behavior, practitioner parameter, and what the packet contains. This makes it adequate but not fully complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 description adds semantic value beyond the schema for key parameters: 'run_id' is explained as selecting a specific run versus default latest, and 'format' is clearly tied to return types (JSON, markdown, base64 PDF). This meaningfully supplements the 57% schema coverage, though not all parameters are addressed.

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 tool retrieves an 'Evidence packet' and explains its default behavior ('Default JSON for latest run') and how to get a specific one. It distinguishes from siblings like get_run by focusing on the packet resource, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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?

It gives practical usage guidance for selecting run_id and format options, including the PDF worker requirement. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or any exclusions, leaving the when-to-use nuanced to inference.

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