install_app

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose useful behavior: automatic pre-checks for docker, ports, and duplicates, and that refusals are returned as results rather than errors. However, it says nothing about what success produces (container started? status returned?) or idempotency, leaving a mutation tool partially opaque.

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 front-loaded sentences: purpose first, behavior second, with zero filler. Every clause earns its place and the key action is stated in the opening 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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main action and the notable refusal-as-result behavior, which is the most important edge case an agent needs. It falls short only on success semantics and explicit prerequisites.

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 both 'app' and 'port' are already documented with examples and defaults. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies; the mention of port pre-checks loosely relates but adds no parameter meaning.

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?

States a specific verb (install), resource (self-hosted app), and mechanism (via docker compose), which contrasts naturally with siblings like install_uninstall, install_purge, and install_status. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the action 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 never says when to use this tool versus install_list/install_status/install_uninstall, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the verb 'install'. The pre-check sentence describes mechanics, not selection guidance.

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