install_tool

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

The description is highly transparent about implementation by explicitly naming the three different package managers used (winget, brew, apt). This adds vital behavioral context regarding environmental compatibility beyond the simple 'non-destructive' annotation.

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 definition is extremely concise and to the point. It uses a single sentence to encapsulate the tool's entire functional description without any fluff.

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 limited scope (only six allowed tools), the description is contextually complete for understanding the tool's core function and operational constraints. Since there is no output schema, no return value explanation is necessary.

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 schema provides the complete list of tools via the 'enum' constraint. Since the description does not add context or meaning to the specific enumerated values (git, node, etc.), it receives the baseline score of 3.

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 goal: installing a tool. It specifies the methodology (winget, brew, apt). However, it does not differentiate this general installation tool from other setup/configuration tools in the sibling list, preventing a perfect 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool relative to the workflow (e.g., is it prerequisite for other tools?) or when it should not be used. It only states what it does.

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