get_installation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. The verb "Get" and the described outputs strongly suggest a read-only operation with no side effects, but the description does not explicitly confirm this or mention auth requirements, rate limits, or output structure. It is adequate for a simple read tool but leaves some behavioral traits unspecified.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and the complete list of returned content without any filler. Every element earns its place, and the length is proportionate to the tool's simplicity.

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 tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it enumerates the output categories and the schema fully covers the inputs. The main gap is that the output format and any behavioral constraints (such as authentication) remain implicit, but this is minor given the tool's low complexity.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both `id` and `framework` fully documented, so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description adds general context about installation content but no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ("Get") and a clear resource (installation details for a UI system), then enumerates the exact return types: package names, installation commands, peer dependencies, and setup instructions. This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_ui_system or get_component_guidance. An agent knows precisely what this tool provides.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_ui_system, search_ui_systems, or get_component_guidance. There are no preconditions, exclusions, or routing cues. Usage is only vaguely implied by the tool's content focus, which is not enough given the large sibling set.

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