Get install instructions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds valuable context: the tool returns inert text and never executes shell or package-manager commands. This reinforces the safety profile and goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists.

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 only two sentences and both earn their place. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the important behavioral safety note is included without 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 simple, read-only tool, the description conveys the essential purpose and safety behavior. However, the lack of parameter explanation, especially for component, and no specification of what 'official install command' looks like in the response make it only minimally 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 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It does not: library_id is somewhat self-explanatory, but component's role is ambiguous, and no parameter details are provided beyond schema property names.

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 it returns an official install command as inert text, identifying the resource and the tool's non-executing nature. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_library_guidance, which would earn a 5.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description explains what the tool does but gives no context about when an agent should select it over get_library_guidance or recommend_stack.

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