Compose

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses a concrete behavioral trait: sources is intersected with knowledgeScope when set. This adds useful operational context that the annotations do not provide.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a critical operational caveat. No filler or redundancy; every sentence contributes information.

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 tool with four undocumented parameters, no usage guidance, and an output schema that does not compensate for input semantics, the description is incomplete. An agent could guess the overall purpose but would not know how to set refs or task, or how budget_chars affects the composed result.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameter meaning. It only mentions 'sources' and indirectly hints at 'budget_chars' through 'budgeted pack'; 'refs' and 'task' remain completely unexplained, leaving the agent without enough information to populate the inputs confidently.

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?

Description identifies a specific composite action: binding packages, suggestions, and explore/open operations into a single budgeted pack. This clearly differentiates it from individual siblings like search, suggest, and open, though the phrase 'explore/open pages' is somewhat informal.

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 used when multiple operations should be combined into one budgeted pack, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus calling the sibling tools individually, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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