pack

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

It discloses destructive behaviors (uninstall removes rows, untrust revokes keys), write gating via YANTRIKDB_ENABLE_PACK_WRITES, down-weighting of pack memories, and embedder verification nuances. This goes far beyond the destructiveHint annotation, providing rich context about side effects and trust.

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 well-structured with clear sections (READ ACTIONS, WRITE ACTIONS) and a concise Args list. It is densely packed with useful information without fluff; every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers all actions, parameters, environmental prerequisites, security model, and even edge cases like 'Does NOT override a hard dimension mismatch.' Given the tool's complexity, this is thorough, and an output schema exists to handle return details.

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 Args section explicitly describes each parameter's purpose and permissible actions: 'path: Pack file path (inspect / install / mount)', 'pack_id: Pack identifier, e.g. "origin@1.0.0" (uninstall / unmount)', etc. With schema description coverage at 0%, this fully compensates and adds valuable constraints.

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 line, 'Signed, portable memory bundles — inspect, install, and trust packs,' clearly identifies the tool's domain and operations. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'remember' and 'skill' by focusing on external, signed memory bundles from other agents/vendors.

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 explicitly separates READ ACTIONS (always available) from WRITE ACTIONS (operator-gated) and advises 'always inspect before you install.' It also explains the trust hierarchy (local memories outrank packs), but it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use the tool.

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