validate_package_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool validates package usage but doesn't disclose behavioral traits: it doesn't specify what 'appropriately' means (e.g., correct imports, version compatibility, best practices), whether it's read-only or has side effects, what the output includes, or any rate limits. For a validation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence: 'Validate if code uses existing packages appropriately'. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity. Every word earns its place.

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 1 parameter, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally complete. The output schema likely covers return values, reducing the need for output details in the description. However, for a validation tool, it lacks context on what 'appropriately' entails, error handling, or dependencies, leaving gaps despite the output schema.

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 compensate. It implies the parameter is code-related ('code uses existing packages'), which aligns with the 'code_snippet' parameter in the schema. However, it doesn't add meaning beyond this basic mapping—no details on format, length, or examples. With 1 parameter and low coverage, the description provides minimal but not sufficient semantic context.

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 purpose: 'Validate if code uses existing packages appropriately' - a specific verb (validate) applied to a resource (code usage of packages). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'discover_packages' or 'prevent_reinvention_check' by focusing on validation rather than discovery or prevention. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., when packages are already known), exclusions (e.g., not for discovering new packages), or direct comparisons to siblings like 'prevent_reinvention_check' or 'discover_packages'. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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