install_package

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral context: installation target (session workspace vs shared cache), relationship to code import, and network dependency. It doesn't detail every side effect but covers the essential operational consequences.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose; every clause adds either scope or behavioral context. No irrelevant detail.

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?

Covers purpose, target environment, and precondition; output schema presumably covers return values. Missing version semantics is the main gap, but for the tool's core operation the description is sufficiently complete.

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 gives meaningful context for language (toolchain examples), package (the thing to install), and session_id (affects installation destination). However, the optional version parameter is not addressed, and schema descriptions are absent, so the agent must infer version syntax.

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?

Description opens with specific verb-install and resource-package, further scoped by language and package manager examples. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling execution/session tools.

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?

Clearly states the session_id distinction for workspace vs shared cache and the network requirement. It does not explicitly name when not to use this tool or alternatives, but the contextual cues are strong.

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