install_base_servers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs an installation, implying a write/mutation operation, but fails to describe critical behaviors such as whether it overwrites existing configurations, requires specific permissions, or has side effects like restarting services. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's impact.

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, straightforward sentence that efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more front-loaded with additional context to improve clarity.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'base MCP servers' entail, the outcome of the installation, error conditions, or how it interacts with the configuration file. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively in complex scenarios.

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 has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the single parameter 'configPath'. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, as it mentions no parameters. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics without extra help from the description.

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 the action ('Install') and target ('base MCP servers'), but it's vague about what 'base MCP servers' specifically are and doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like analyze_code or collect_code. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity and differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or in what context it should be applied. The description does not mention prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage instructions beyond the basic action.

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