cork_get_installer_setup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It implies a read-only lookup by using 'get' and describing returned content, but it does not explicitly state that the operation has no side effects, whether authentication is required, or what happens when setup is not needed. The description adds meaningful context but leaves some behavioral aspects implicit.

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 but information-dense sentence, front-loading the core purpose and then the trigger condition. It is reasonably concise and avoids redundancy, though the long dash-separated enumeration makes it slightly harder to parse than necessary.

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 two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential return contents and the exact usage condition. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it could mention possible empty/undefined results when setup is not required.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both vendor_key and package_manager_key well. The description mentions the package manager in the usage condition but does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: retrieving one-time setup steps for RMM vendors that require manual setup before software installs work. It specifies what is returned (script to create, exact name, settings, variables) and distinguishes itself from sibling read tools via the manual-setup context.

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 gives an explicit trigger condition: use it when installer.requires_manual_setup=true and the package manager is missing from installer.configured_package_managers. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the provided context is strong enough for an agent to route correctly.

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