package_document

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'for printing' but does not explain that packaging collects fonts, links, and profiles (as implied by the schema). It fails to reveal if the document is modified or a new package is created, or any side effects.

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 concise (one sentence) but lacks structure. It is under-specified and does not earn its place by providing useful information beyond the name. Could be more informative while remaining brief.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description should explain the packaging process, what output is produced, and prerequisites. It does none of these, leaving the agent uninformed about the tool's full capabilities and constraints.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; it simply repeats the tool's name. No additional context is provided for parameters like outputPath or includeFonts.

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 'Package document for printing' states a verb and resource but is vague. It does not explain what 'package' entails or how it differs from sibling tools like export_pdf or export_epub. The purpose is minimally clear but lacks specificity.

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 over alternatives such as export_pdf or save_document. No exclusions or context provided. The description is insufficient to help an agent decide when to invoke this tool.

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