homebutler

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It adds valuable behavioral context about pre-checks (docker availability, port conflicts, duplicate detection), but omits mutation safety details, idempotency guarantees, failure behaviors, and side effects expected for a system-modification 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, zero waste. Front-loaded with action verb, second sentence adds distinct behavioral value (pre-checks). No redundancy or fluff.

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?

Adequate for the schema complexity (2 simple parameters), but incomplete given the tool's system-mutation nature and lack of annotations/output schema. Missing safety profiles, rollback capabilities, or success/failure indicators.

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%, establishing baseline 3. Description implies docker-compose context but does not augment parameter semantics (valid app name formats, port syntax requirements) beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

Description provides specific verb ('Install'), resource ('self-hosted app'), and method ('via docker compose'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling management tools (install_list, install_uninstall) by specifying this creates new installations.

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 implicit usage context through 'Pre-checks... automatically' suggesting when the tool is appropriate (automated validation desired), but lacks explicit 'when to use vs alternatives' guidance or named sibling comparisons.

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