grimoire_plan_install

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It clearly states it does NOT run anything (safety), returns ordered commands, and outlines the algorithm (RF-Swift script recipe first, then package manager). However, it does not mention error handling or response format (no output schema).

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 with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys purpose, approach, and non-execution side effect.

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 simple schema (1 param, no enums, no output schema), the description covers the main behavior and algorithm. However, it lacks parameter details and any mention of prerequisites or edge cases (e.g., tool already installed). It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 only parameter 'tool' is a string with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what 'tool' expects (e.g., name, path, identifier). It says 'missing tool' implying tool name, but this is insufficient. The parameter meaning should be explicit.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Resolve HOW a missing tool would be installed' and specifies the ordered approach (RF-Swift script recipe first, then host package manager). It also explicitly states it does not execute anything, distinguishing it from potential installation siblings. The verb 'resolve' and object 'how a missing tool would be installed' are specific and 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?

The description implicitly tells when to use (when you need to know the installation plan without running) but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like grimorie_which (which might check installation status) or other grimorie tools. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or alternative mentions.

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