business_pack_report

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open world behavior. The description adds that it reports 'expected' components and 'safe discovery calls', which are mild behavioral hints. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words. Could be improved with structured lists for parameters or clearer separation of concerns, but overall efficient.

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?

With an output schema but no parameter descriptions and a terse description, the tool lacks completeness. The agent cannot determine what 'expected' means, what the report includes, or how to interpret results. Insufficient for reliable invocation.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of the three parameters (pack, use_live_metadata, instance). The agent must infer meaning solely from parameter names and defaults, which is insufficient for correct usage.

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?

Describes the tool as reporting 'expected modules, models, and safe discovery calls for a business pack', clearly defining the resource and output. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling report tools like fit_gap_report or upgrade_risk_report, though the specific content provides implicit distinction.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. The agent is left to guess appropriate usage scenarios.

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