Install dependencies

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it runs npm install, implying a mutation of the environment, but does not reveal potential side effects like overwriting node_modules, requiring network access, or idempotency, which are critical for safe invocation.

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 concise single sentence that conveys the core action without redundancy. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it may be overly terse at the expense of necessary details.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify the parameter semantics, side effects, or expected result, leaving an agent unable to confidently invoke the tool correctly.

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 sole parameter 'app' has no description in the schema (0% coverage), and the description only vaguely references 'app directory' without explaining what value 'app' expects (e.g., an ID or path). This is a severe gap for a required parameter.

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 action ('Run npm install') and the context ('in the app directory'), making it unambiguous about what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like deploy, which might also install dependencies, so it lacks a distinctive contrast.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., app must exist) or exclusions (e.g., when dependencies are already installed), leaving the agent without direction on appropriate conditions.

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