install_deps

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

With no annotations, the description covers key behavioral aspects: it is interactive, not infrastructure automation, and returns installation results. It could be more explicit about side effects like network access or file system changes, but overall provides good transparency.

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 well-structured with clear sections, but it is somewhat lengthy for a no-parameter tool. The example workflow is helpful but could be more concise. Still, every section adds value.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is complete. It explains the workflow, when to use, and even provides an example. No gaps in context for an AI agent to understand usage.

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 has 0 parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, and the description provides context about what the tool operates on (packages.yml) without needing parameter specifics.

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 'Install dbt packages defined in packages.yml' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like build_models and load_seeds by focusing on dependency installation.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' bullets: after modifying packages.yml, before using external macros, when setting up a new project. It also provides an alternative workflow using list_resources for verification, giving clear context for when to use this tool versus others.

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