Instalar dependências

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the commands run, but does not reveal that installing dependencies modifies the project (e.g., node_modules, lock files), may require network access, or can fail if no package manifest exists. The description is too minimal to inform the agent about side effects or prerequisites.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It contains no filler or repetition, earning full marks for efficiency.

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 tool is simple with one optional parameter, a full input schema, and an output schema (per context signals). The description covers the core action and auto-detection, which is adequate for basic use. However, it lacks any mention of side effects, prerequisite conditions, or error behavior, making it only minimally complete for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for the single 'packageManager' parameter, including an enum and default description. The description's mention of 'detecta automaticamente' adds no new semantic beyond the schema's 'Default: auto'. With full schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and no additional value is provided.

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 tool's action: 'Roda npm install, yarn install ou pnpm install' (runs npm/yarn/pnpm install). It identifies the verb and resource, and the auto-detection feature is a specific differentiator. No sibling tool overlaps with this install function.

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 when dependencies need to be installed, and mentions auto-detection of the package manager. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it exclude any scenarios (e.g., when package.json is missing). Given no alternative install tool exists among siblings, the implicit guidance is sufficient for a 3.

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