Alias cũ của cloud_packages

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 does disclose the key behavioral trait that this tool is an alias and is not the canonical entry point, but it does not describe the underlying behavior, side effects, or what cloud_packages itself does. This is adequate but minimal.

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 extremely concise: a short label identifying the alias role and a direct instruction to prefer cloud_packages. Every word earns its place and the key routing guidance is front-loaded.

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?

For a zero-parameter deprecated alias, the description is nearly complete for correct invocation. It explains the alias relationship and directs new usage to the correct sibling, though it relies on the cloud_packages tool definition for the actual package-related behavior and return values.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed because there is nothing to pass when invoking this tool.

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 that the tool is a compatible alias for cloud_packages, giving it a specific role and naming the canonical sibling it maps to. It is not a tautology and distinguishes itself from cloud_packages by designating the latter as the primary tool.

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 explicitly instructs users to use cloud_packages for new integrations, which is a clear when-not-to-use statement. It also implies the alias remains available for legacy compatibility, making the intended usage unambiguous.

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