Metis — Install Background Pack

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does: it discloses the network egress ('fetches files from the internet'), the dry-run-by-default semantics, and critically that indexing is NOT performed here but deferred to the nightly job or the Rebuild button. That deferred-side-effect disclosure is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent cannot infer from the 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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the dry-run warning, then the indexing caveat, then an Args block. Every sentence is substantive, though the meaning of confirm is stated both in the body and in the Args entry, which is mild redundancy.

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 two-parameter install tool with no annotations, it covers what happens on each confirm value, where the slug comes from, where data originates (network), and what is deferred (indexing). An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and nothing an agent needs to call this safely is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for both parameters: slug is identified as coming from list_background_packs(), and confirm is given precise semantics ('True to actually download and register', with the false branch described in the body). Nothing about the two parameters is left undetermined.

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 concrete verb+resource ('Install a knowledge background pack') and immediately unpacks it into the two effects: fetching documents and registering the layer. It also names where the slug comes from (list_background_packs). It does not distinguish itself from the sibling export_background_pack, which is the only remaining ambiguity.

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?

Gives explicit operating context: without confirm=True it is a dry run, and the researcher should review the list and hosts first because files come from the internet. That is a clear when-to-use rule plus a prerequisite. It does not discuss alternatives (e.g. list_background_packs or export_background_pack) beyond as a slug source, so not a full 5.

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