platform_package_model

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states what the tool shows but does not mention side effects, read-only status, required permissions, or whether it connects to a live system or works offline. This is a significant gap for a tool that inspects local packages, as agents need to know if calling it modifies state or requires setup.

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 two sentences but the first sentence focuses on Arch's broader behavior ('Arch validates packages, inspects compiler-visible models, and drives repair loops') rather than the tool's specific function. This adds some noise. The second sentence is clear and lists components, but the opening could be trimmed to be more direct 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?

The description enumerates what the tool returns (list of components) but lacks details on output format, return value structure, or any behavioral caveats (e.g., what happens with invalid paths). With no output schema and no annotations, this is a moderate gap. However, the list of components provides a reasonable understanding of the tool's scope.

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%, so each parameter (data, path, files) has a description. The tool description itself does not add parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description does not contradict or confuse parameter usage.

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's function: 'Show what the platform compiler sees in a local project package' and enumerates the specific components (agents, tools, handoffs, memory variables, behavior profile references, flow steps, unresolved refs). This distinguishes it from siblings like platform_validate_package (validation) or platform_project_builder (build), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 use for inspection of a package's compiler-visible model but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. The first sentence mentions Arch validates packages, inspects models, and drives repair loops, which hints at context but lacks clear directives such as 'use this instead of X' or prerequisites. Sibling names suggest differentiation, but no exclusions are given.

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