yaaif_desktop_tool_package_get

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

Annotations are none, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', which implies a read operation, but does not explicitly state read-only nature, error handling, or that it returns full package details. This is a gap for a tool with no annotation safety profile.

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?

One concise sentence with no waste. It includes the essential identification options and an example, making it efficient and front-loaded.

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 with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but could mention that it is a read-only operation and what the return contains. It does not discuss failure cases or relationship to list/inspect, leaving some context missing.

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 description adds significant value by explaining that package_id can be a UUID or a tool_key (with example), compensating for the 0% schema coverage. This helps the agent format the parameter correctly.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'desktop tool package', and specifies identification by id (UUID) or tool_key with an example. It is distinct from list operations, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 versus siblings like yaaif_desktop_tool_packages_list or yaaif_desktop_tool_package_inspect. It implies usage when you have a specific id/key but does not state exclusions or alternatives.

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