binary_install

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses size (~100 MB), integrity verification (SHA256), idempotent caching behavior, the force override, and observable side effects (progress tokens 0-100%, phase logging). It omits failure modes, network/permission prerequisites, and whether concurrent calls are safe.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the cost/verification facts, then the parameter, then the sequencing advice and observable behavior. Every sentence adds information an agent needs and none restates the name or the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers prerequisites, cost, verification, and idempotency. The remaining gap is failure/error behavior and environment requirements, which matter for a ~100 MB network download.

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 coverage is 0% and the single 'force' parameter is a bare boolean, so the description must supply meaning. It does: 'Set force=True to re-download even if a cached copy exists', which fully defines the parameter's effect beyond the schema's default value.

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 and resource: 'Download (and verify) the patched Firefox binary'. The 'if not already cached' clause also distinguishes it from the sibling binary_status, which merely reports state. It stops short of naming that sibling outright, 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?

Gives an explicit ordering instruction ('Call this before session_start') and the condition under which the call is a no-op ('if not already cached'). It does not name binary_status as the alternative for checking cache state, so the agent must infer the routing; there are no explicit when-not conditions either.

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