packagekit_get_details

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 indicates a read operation via PackageKit D-Bus and names some returned fields, but it does not explain failure behavior, whether a bare package name is sufficient for the D-Bus call, whether network access is needed, or what the output structure looks like.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the action, the resource, and the key metadata categories. Every phrase contributes information, with no filler or repetition.

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, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description is thin for safe invocation. It omits expected return shape, error conditions, and usage context, and it does not relate to any sibling packagekit tools.

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 input schema already describes the only parameter with 100% coverage, including an example, so the description adds little semantic value. The phrase "for a package" loosely matches the schema's "Name of package to inspect" without clarifying any package ID or format nuances.

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 uses a clear verb-resource pair, "Get detailed metadata," and enumerates the specific package information returned: description, license, and repository info. It distinguishes this from a broad search, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like packagekit_search or packagekit_what_provides.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of the many packagekit siblings. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., whether the package must be installed), exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage 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.