ecp_asdf_install

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation takes time, cannot show install output, and requires external verification via a sibling tool. It does not mention side effects, failure modes, or the confirm parameter's role. This is useful but not comprehensive for a mutation tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and immediately followed by the critical behavioral caveat. No wasted words; every sentence provides essential information for correct invocation.

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 install command, the description covers the main workflow but omits parameter semantics and doesn't explain how to discover valid versions (e.g., via ecp_asdf_list_all_versions). Without annotations or output schema, this is incomplete for an agent to call correctly with confidence.

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 says nothing about the parameters (name, version, confirm). The agent must infer that 'name' refers to the plugin, 'version' to the specific version, and 'confirm' is a safety flag (since it is const true). No guidance is given on how to obtain these values or formats, leaving significant ambiguity.

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?

Clearly states the action ('Install a plugin version') and the resource. Distinguishes from sibling asdf tools like list and uninstall by specifying the install action and the follow-up verification step. The phrase 'takes time' adds practical context.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on the post-install workflow ('check ecp_asdf_list_installed_versions afterward'), which implies when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., if the version is already installed) or alternative tools for checking availability, so not a full 5.

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