get_pack

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It lists output facets but does not state that this is a read-only operation, what failure modes exist, or the meaning of 'versions on disk'.

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 very short and every word contributes information. It is front-loaded with the key scope ('One pack id'), though it is telegraphic and could be structured as a full sentence.

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 with one parameter and an output schema, so return structure does not need to be fully explained. However, the absence of usage guidance and behavioral details leaves the description only minimally complete for an agent trying to select it correctly among many pack-related siblings.

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 only defines 'pack' as a string with no description. The phrase 'One pack id' adds meaning by indicating the parameter is a pack identifier and that exactly one is expected, partially compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 identifies what the tool operates on ('One pack id') and what it returns: versions on disk, members, and maps that pin it. It is specific enough to distinguish from list_packs, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use get_pack versus related tools like fetch_pack, list_packs, or where_used. The description gives no context for choosing this tool over alternatives.

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