Install Dependencies

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

The description discloses that clean=true 'nuke node_modules/vendor first', which is a meaningful behavioral detail beyond what the annotations say (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It clarifies the destructive nature of the clean option. No annotation contradiction exists. However, it doesn't mention other traits like network usage or lockfile handling, so a small gap remains.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences plus two examples. Every word earns its place. The examples illustrate both primary use cases (basic install and clean install) efficiently. No fluff or repetition.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the main behavior (install dependencies), the optional clean flag, and provides examples. It could mention that project can be a path (schema already covers this) or state what happens after install (e.g., success message), but those are minor gaps given the low complexity.

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% (both parameters documented), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining clean=true in natural language ('nuke node_modules/vendor first') and showing usage via examples for 'project'. It clarifies the practical interpretation of the parameters beyond the schema's terse descriptions.

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 resource ('dependencies') and verb ('install') via the title and examples. The examples 'Install deps for JobPin' and 'Clean install my project' unambiguously show the tool installs dependencies for a project. It distinguishes from siblings like depsonar_update and depsonar_check by focusing on fresh installs.

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 implies usage (fresh install, clean install) through examples, and mentions when to use clean=true. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like depsonar_update (for updating existing deps) or state when not to use this tool. The 'fresh install' phrasing hints at intent but lacks explicit exclusion or alternative guidance.

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