Instalar escáneres

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

Annotations only declare openWorldHint=true, and the description adds real behavioral context: downloads come from the official GitHub latest release, SHA-256 is verified when published, semgrep/bandit go through `uv tool install`, and CodeQL costs ~500 MB of disk. It still omits idempotency/overwrite behavior for already-installed scanners and what happens on checksum mismatch.

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 verb and target, then a compact clause per install mechanism and a size warning. Dense but every clause carries information; the parenthetical binary list is the only slightly heavy element.

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?

With no output schema and minimal annotations, this is enough for a one-parameter installer: source, verification, mechanism and disk footprint are all covered. A note on whether results are reported back or whether existing installs are replaced would close the remaining gap.

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 100% and the single `tools` array is fully enumerated, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds only indirect value by explaining that Go binaries and the uv-installed tools take different install paths, without clarifying per-parameter behavior such as re-installing an existing tool.

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+resource ("Descarga e instala escáneres en la carpeta de xolotl") and then enumerates the exact binaries involved, so it is clearly distinguishable from the scan_* siblings that run scanners rather than install them.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the setup step before scanning, but the description never says when to call it (first run, after xolotl_doctor reports missing tools, before/after upgrading) nor names an alternative path such as xolotl_doctor for checking installed tooling.

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