get_ignition_package_docs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states that it retrieves package documentation but does not describe what the returned documentation format is, whether the operation is read-only (though likely), any potential error conditions, or the role of the `version` parameter. This is a minimal disclosure that leaves significant behavioral aspects unspecified.

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, lean sentence that states the core function without extraneous words. It is perfectly sized and front-loaded, conveying the essential purpose immediately.

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 a simple getter with clear parameters, but it lacks an output schema and the description does not explain what the documentation contains or how it relates to sibling tools. Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate but has gaps—e.g., no mention of return type or typical usage context, which would help an agent select and use it 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?

The schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (`packagePath` with an example, `version` with its default), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what is already in the schema, which is acceptable for a schema-heavy tool, but does not compensate with extra nuance.

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's function: 'Gets the documentation for a specific package.' It uses a specific verb ('gets') and identifies the resource ('package documentation'), and the tool name reinforces its distinct purpose among siblings (class docs, member docs). This unambiguously differentiates it from `get_ignition_class_docs` and `get_ignition_member_docs`.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (search_ignition_api, get_ignition_class_docs, get_ignition_member_docs). It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context solely from the tool name.

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