install_kali_package

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but lacks critical details: it doesn't mention if this requires root/sudo permissions, if it modifies system state permanently, what happens on failure, or any rate limits. For a system mutation tool, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action and context efficiently, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without 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?

Given the complexity of a system installation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, error handling, or return values. For a tool that likely requires elevated privileges and modifies system state, this leaves the agent under-informed.

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 adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. Since schema description coverage is 100% (the 'package' parameter is fully described), the baseline score of 3 applies. The description doesn't clarify package naming conventions, versioning, or dependencies, but the schema handles the basics adequately.

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 ('install') and target ('a package in Kali Linux using apt'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'run_kali_command' or 'update_kali_system', which could also involve package operations, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention if this is for installing new packages only, how it differs from 'run_kali_command' with apt install, or prerequisites like needing the container running. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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