apt_install

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

Annotations already declare the operation is not read-only, is idempotent, and is not destructive. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the obvious act of installing packages, such as requiring privileges, modifying system state, or network/cache implications.

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 short and the core purpose is front-loaded. The Args/Returns block adds some structure but is largely redundant with the schema, so it is concise rather than maximally informative.

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?

The description provides a minimally viable summary: what it does and what it returns. However, it omits useful context such as remote host prerequisites, administrative requirements, and how the chosen response_format affects the output.

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 description only lists parameter names (packages, host, response_format) without adding semantic detail. Although the nested schema contains rich descriptions, the top-level schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining defaults, constraints, or allowed values.

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 states a specific action and resource: installing one or more packages with APT. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like apt_remove, apt_update, apt_search, and snap_install.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as apt_update, apt_upgrade, apt_remove, or snap_install. The description only implies usage by saying 'install one or more packages with APT'.

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