get_package_for_authenticated_user

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the required token scope, states that it returns metadata including specific fields (name, type, version count, visibility, repository link, timestamps), and points to official docs. It does not cover error cases, but for a read-only retrieval, this is solid.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences plus a docs link. It front-loads the core purpose and return value, with no filler or redundant content.

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 simple get operation with two well-documented parameters, the description covers the essential context: what it returns, the auth scope, and documentation link. Since there is no output schema, the description adequately lists the return fields. It could mention behavior when the package is not found or rate-limit considerations, but it is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both package_name and package_type, including the enum values and container vs. docker distinction. The description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema offers, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'a specific package owned by the authenticated user'. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools such as list_packages_for_authenticated_user and get_package_version_for_authenticated_user by targeting a single package's metadata.

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?

It provides a clear context by specifying the required 'read:packages' token scope, which is useful for authentication. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over siblings (e.g., when you have a specific package_name and package_type) or provide exclusion criteria.

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