create_dependencies

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 explains that the tool accepts a single dependency or an array, and defines the type numbers, but it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or return values. This is a basic level of transparency for an install operation.

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 two sentences with no waste. It front-loads the primary purpose, then provides the type mapping and input format, making it highly concise and structured.

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?

With 4 parameters and full schema coverage, the description covers the input modes and type semantics effectively. It lacks explicit mention of return values or post-install behavior, but for a simple create/install tool, the essentials are present. No output schema exists, yet the description is largely sufficient.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the two modes (single vs. array), but the phrase 'envs / items' is slightly ambiguous and does not robustly clarify the item structure beyond the schema. Thus, it adds some but not great semantic value.

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 'Install dependencies' with a specific verb and resource, and provides the type mapping (1=node, 2=python, 3=linux). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_dependencies and delete_dependencies, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 by mentioning single vs. array inputs, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It relies on the verb 'install' to convey the intended context.

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