crosspad_apps_install

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, and the description aligns with these (no contradiction). The description adds the git-submodule mechanism and delegation detail. However, it doesn't disclose what side effects installing entails beyond 'git submodule' (e.g., modifies .gitmodules, downloads code, network dependence), and with destructiveHint=true the burden on the description is higher for clarifying consequences.

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-sentence description, clean and front-loaded with the core purpose first, followed by prerequisites/delegation. No wasted 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?

It has an output schema, so return values need no explanation. The description covers installation mechanism and a prerequisite. However, for a destructive tool (annotations: destructiveHint=true), it lacks detail on reversal (e.g., use crosspad_apps_remove?), and doesn't mention that `force` bypasses compatibility checks, which is notable behavior for a destructive 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%, so all 4 parameters (ref, force, app_name, platform) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds some value via the platform enum disambiguation ('idf=platform-idf, pc=crosspad-pc, arduino=ESP32-S3'), which is being credited to schema for this. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description itself adds no parameter detail beyond the schema.

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 'Install an app from the crosspad-apps registry as a git submodule' with a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes the action (installing) and mechanism (git submodule). Sibling tools like crosspad_apps_sync/update/remove are differentiated by the install action, though it doesn't explicitly contrast against them.

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?

It states a prerequisite ('Requires gh CLI authenticated'), which is useful, and mentions the delegation target. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like crosspad_apps_sync, crosspad_apps_update, or crosspad_submodule_update. The when-to-use context is only inferred from 'install'.

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