core_install

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'install' without noting that this is a mutating operation that downloads files, may require network access, or could overwrite existing cores. There is no mention of side effects, prerequisites, or error behavior.

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 a single sentence with examples, front-loaded with the verb+resource structure. It contains zero fluff and is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter) and the schema covers the parameter fully. However, the description does not mention what happens after installation, whether it returns success/failure, or any side effects. It is adequate for basic understanding but leaves behavioral gaps for a mutating 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?

The input schema already describes the single parameter platformId with the same examples. The description adds the human-readable board names (Uno, Portenta H7) to those examples, providing additional semantic mapping beyond the schema. This is a modest but real addition.

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 uses a specific verb ('install') and resource ('Arduino core/platform') with a clear scope ('by id'). It provides concrete examples (arduino:avr for Uno, arduino:mbed_portenta for Portenta H7) that distinguish it from sibling tools like lib_install (libraries) and core_list (listing cores).

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: to install a core/platform by ID. It does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as lib_install for libraries or core_list for listing, but the context is unambiguous and sufficient for most cases.

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