tree_package

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses transitive dependency-closure resolution, that the caller's own entries always win, that broken closures are refused at pin time, that the pin records a content digest, that publishing is proof-gated with examples run atop the requires closure, and that wasm is ABI-checked while web/prose artifacts are never executed. Missing is any mention of permissions/authorization or what a failed publish/install returns, which keeps it from a 5.

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 purpose and the zero-argument behavior are front-loaded, and nearly every sentence conveys a distinct rule. It is dense and flows as long run-on sentences rather than structured mode-by-mode, which slightly blunts scanability for a four-mode tool.

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 complex multi-mode package tool with an output schema available (so return shapes need no explanation) and no annotations, the description supplies the essential semantics: pinning, closure resolution, precedence, immutability, and proof-gated publishing. The main gap is the undocumented `name` parameter and the absence of any side-effect or permission framing for the mutating modes.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does for install ('name@version'), uninstall, and publish (enumerating name, version, description, requires, vocabulary, rules, solvers with their fields, and examples). However the top-level `name` parameter is never explained, and how multiple arguments interact (e.g., name plus install) is left to inference.

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 opening sentence names the resource concretely (semantic package library of vocabulary, rules, solvers shared across the server) and the rest enumerates distinct operations: list, install, uninstall, publish. An agent can tell this is the package-registry tool rather than the per-artifact tools like tree_vocabulary or tree_solver, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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?

Mode dispatch is spelled out: no arguments lists the library and this workspace's pins, install='name@version' pins, uninstall removes, publish submits. That is clear guidance on which argument selects which behavior. It stops short of exclusions such as when to use this versus the individual vocabulary/rule/solver tools, or how to combine arguments.

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