core_install

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the installation action, without mentioning potential side effects like downloading files, requiring network access, modifying local storage, or prerequisites such as running core_list first. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like 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?

The description is one clear sentence followed by two illustrative examples. No filler words, front-loaded with the action, and every element contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 simple tool with a single well-defined parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. The main missing context is behavioral (side effects), already penalized in behavioral_transparency. Given the low complexity, the description adequately covers the essential information needed to invoke the tool.

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 the schema already fully documents the platformId parameter. The description adds value by providing concrete examples (arduino:avr, arduino:mbed_portenta), but this is supplementary rather than essential, keeping the score at the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb 'Install' with a resource 'Arduino core/platform by id' and provides concrete examples (arduino:avr, arduino:mbed_portenta). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like core_list or lib_install by stating the action and target.

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 when to use it — when a specific core needs to be installed — and gives example IDs, but it does not explicitly state alternatives or conditions not to use it. Usage context is implied rather than fully articulated.

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