Get Pack

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is safe. The description adds the return contents (metadata, coverage, etc.) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits beyond what annotations imply. With annotations present, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 sentence, which is efficient, but contains jargon ('preferred canonical tool guidance') that reduces clarity. It could be more structured or use plainer language.

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 tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (metadata, coverage, etc.). It is complete for the tool's simplicity, though lacking details on return format.

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 100%: the pack_id parameter is well-described with examples. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 tool returns detailed metadata, coverage, freshness, guidance, and examples for one pack. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_catalog' which likely lists packs. However, 'preferred canonical tool guidance' is somewhat vague, preventing a 5.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. 'Free discovery' hints at cost but is not a usage guideline. Sibling tools like 'get_catalog' or dataset-specific tools exist but no exclusion criteria are provided.

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