get_package_info_from_cpan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks critical details such as whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error handling for invalid package names, or the format of returned information. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the complexity of a tool with 3 parameters (one required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error cases, response format, or usage constraints, leaving the agent with incomplete information to invoke the tool effectively in a real-world context.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'package basic information and dependencies', which aligns with the parameters 'package_name', 'include_dependencies', and 'include_dev_dependencies', adding some semantic context. However, it doesn't explain the meaning or implications of the boolean parameters, leaving ambiguity about what 'dev dependencies' entail or how they differ from regular dependencies.

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 the action ('Get') and resource ('package basic information and dependencies from CPAN'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_readme_from_cpan' or 'search_packages_from_cpan', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'search_packages_from_cpan' for broader searches or 'get_readme_from_cpan' for documentation, leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit direction.

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