package_install

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'requires package.danger.install (high risk)', hinting at elevated permission, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as running install scripts, altering system state, or potential side effects. Limited transparency for a mutation operation.

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: the first states the action, the second adds a critical risk caveat. No redundant information, front-loaded and efficient.

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's simplicity, the description covers purpose and permission, but leaves out potential details like default manager behavior when omitted, side effects, or expected outcome. The parameter schema fills some gaps, but with no annotations or output schema, the description could be more thorough. However, it is adequate for a basic install operation.

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% with clear descriptions for both 'name' and 'manager'. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the action itself, so baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter semantics.

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?

Clearly states 'Install a package' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like package_list and package_info. No ambiguity about the tool's core function.

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 versus alternatives. The only extra note is the permission requirement, which is a prerequisite rather than usage direction. Does not mention alternatives like package_list or when installation is appropriate.

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