Install a missing tool

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

Annotations declare openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is partly covered; the description still adds real value by naming the platform package managers and, importantly, warning that Windows installs may require an MCP client restart for PATH updates. It omits failure behavior (e.g., what happens with an unknown or already-installed tool), keeping it out of the top band.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and platform mapping, followed by the allowed values and the Windows PATH caveat. Every sentence carries distinct, actionable information with no filler.

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?

For a single-parameter install tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the platform-specific mechanisms, valid inputs, and the post-install PATH caveat, which is what an agent needs to call it. It stops short of describing failure handling or pointing to verify_install as the follow-up step.

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% and the single 'name' parameter carries an enum, so the schema already documents the input fully. The description's 'known tools' list merely restates the enum members and adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (install) and resource (CLI tool) and even names the platform-specific backends (winget/brew/apt), so an agent immediately knows what this does. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling verify_install, which covers the adjacent verification concern, so it falls short of the top band.

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?

Usage is only implied: the title and the 'known tools' list suggest this is for filling a missing dependency, but the description never says when to reach for this versus verify_install, preflight, or inspect_package, nor does it state any exclusion or precondition. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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