get_installation_guide

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the content and the Bun-default behavior, but does not state that this is a safe read-only retrieval, nor anything about return format, size, or caching. For a documentation-fetch tool this is adequate but thin.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with no filler; the purpose and the Bun recommendation are front-loaded, and no sentence is redundant.

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 single-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what will be returned (instructions/commands plus all install methods). It is complete enough to invoke correctly, with only minor gaps around result structure.

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%, so the enum values and the default-when-omitted behavior are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (obtiene) and resource (instrucciones y comandos de instalación) scoped to Anime.js v4, and enumerates the covered installation methods. It is clear what the tool delivers, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby get_module_imports_guide sibling, which overlaps conceptually.

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?

Usage is implied (fetch installation instructions for Anime.js v4), and the schema note clarifies that omitting 'method' returns all options with Bun highlighted. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or routing to alternative siblings (e.g. get_module_imports_guide) is provided.

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