install_include

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently conveys that the tool performs a network download and writes to pawno/include. However, it does not disclose whether an existing file is overwritten, whether the URL is validated, or what happens if the download or installation fails.

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?

A single sentence with no filler: it names the action, source, file type, and destination. Every word contributes meaning, and the key details are front-loaded.

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 two-parameter tool without an output schema, the description covers the core call requirements (URL, name, destination). Still, it leaves out potentially important context such as whether the operation overwrites existing includes, any return/confirmation format, or whether a server root must be set beforehand—gaps an agent might need to probe.

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%, with both 'url' and 'name' already well-described. The tool description adds meaningful context by clarifying that the URL should point directly to a .inc file (e.g., GitHub raw) and that the file lands in pawno/include, but this is supplementary rather than essential given the schema.

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 a specific action ('Download and install a .inc library from a URL') and the target destination ('into pawno/include'). It differentiates from sibling tools like install_plugin by specifying .inc libraries rather than plugins, and from read_include/list_includes by focusing on installation rather than inspection.

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 implies usage: it is the tool to use when you need to fetch and install an include from a remote URL. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives such as install_plugin or read_include, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites like needing a configured server root.

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