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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the omit-to-get-all behavior, which is already implied by the schema's optional param. No return shape, auth, or rate-limit context is added, but an output schema exists so that is less critical.

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?

It is a single sentence with no padding, but it is a run-on that chains install instructions, AI app connection, Claude Desktop, and recipe runners together. The final clause is confusing rather than clarifying, so brevity comes at the cost of parseability.

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?

Complexity is low: one optional enum parameter, full annotations, and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. What is missing is a plain statement of what the returned line actually is and why an agent would call this versus reading setup docs. Adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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% and the enum values are self-explanatory platform identifiers. The description restates the schema's 'omit to get every one' note rather than adding new semantics such as what the returned install line contains or how platform detection should be done. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: get the single install line for UGT per platform, plus the Claude Desktop variant. The intent is legible and clearly distinct from the sibling tools (recipes, projects, files). It stops short of naming siblings, and the trailing clause 'what each computer runs recipes in' muddies whether it returns install commands or recipe-runner info.

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?

Provides guidance only for the optional parameter ('Omit the computer to get every one'), which tells the agent how to widen the call. There is no explicit when-to-use framing against alternatives and no prerequisites, though the sibling tools cover obviously different resources so no routing conflict arises.

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