get_package_manager

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'detects and returns' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify how detection works (e.g., checking lock files), potential side effects, error handling, or return format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('detects and returns'), making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 the complexity (detection logic with fallback behavior) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'package manager information' includes (e.g., name, version), how detection prioritizes lock files, or what happens if 'cwd' is invalid. For a tool with no structured behavioral data, this leaves too many unknowns.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('cwd' and 'defaultManager') with descriptions and enum values. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining detection logic or parameter interactions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 with a specific verb ('detects and returns') and resource ('package manager information'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'install_component' or 'update_component' by focusing on detection rather than installation or updates. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'get_documentation' might also retrieve information).

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., needing a project directory), exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'init_project' (which might also involve package manager setup). Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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