lib_install

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Install' without mentioning potential side effects such as overwriting existing library versions, requiring network access, modifying global configuration, or what happens if a library is already installed.

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?

A single, direct sentence with no filler. The core action and target are clearly communicated in minimal words.

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 single-parameter install tool, the description covers the essential intent. However, it lacks any detail about return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances (e.g., installing latest versions by default). Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, a bit more context would make it more complete.

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 the schema stating 'Library names as known to Library Manager'. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema, but the schema adequately documents the single parameter, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Install'), a clear resource ('Arduino libraries'), and the source ('from Library Manager'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like core_install (which installs cores) and lib_search (which searches libraries).

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lib_search or core_install. There is no mention of prerequisites, version selection, or when a different installation approach might be preferred.

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