get_package_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the concrete output categories, which is useful, but it does not mention behavior when the package is unknown, registry mismatches, or any auth/private-package considerations. The read-only nature is evident from 'get', but failure behavior is left unexplained.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the operation and immediately lists the useful return fields. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 two-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description is almost complete: it names the tool's scope and return content while the schema handles parameter details. It could be more complete by explicitly steering agents to search_packages for discovery, but nothing essential for a correct call is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains both parameters well, including examples for name and an enum for registry. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the high schema 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 states a clear verb-resource pair: 'Get detailed info about a specific package' and lists the exact return areas (latest version, license, homepage, repository). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_packages, though it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling.

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 implies this tool is for retrieving details about an already-identified package, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to use it instead of search_packages or other sibling tools. There are no exclusions or alternative-routing hints.

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