hda_install

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns about '落盘 + 全局 HDA registry 副作用' (disk + global HDA registry side effects) and that changes are '不由 Houdini undo 恢复' (not recoverable by Houdini undo). It also mentions 'apply_response_cap', which adds behavioral context. However, it does not cover permissions, error handling, or return values, keeping it slightly below full transparency.

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 highly concise, using three short sentences to convey the main action, side effects, and response cap. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, and the most critical facts are front-loaded. No redundancy or filler.

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 global side effects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the most important points: what it does, that it is non-undoable, and its response cap. However, it omits parameter details and return/error behavior, which would be needed for fully safe deployment. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of the 'file_path' parameter beyond the schema's title. It does not compensate for the low coverage by describing path format, expected file types, or how to resolve paths. The parameter is self-explanatory by name, but the description adds no semantic value.

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 clearly states '安装 HDA 库' (install HDA library), specifying a concrete verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling HDA tools like hda_create, update_hda, and uninstall_hda by focusing on the install operation. The scope is unambiguous.

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 notes significant side effects and non-undoability, which implicitly conveys when to be cautious. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like hda_create or update_hda, nor does it mention any prerequisites. Usage context is implied rather than clearly defined.

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