action_requirements

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

The description discloses one behavioral trait (skipping if the library is preinstalled), which is helpful. However, with no annotations available, it should also mention potential side effects, such as whether it creates the endpoint or modifies the file directly, or what happens if the endpoint doesn't exist. The disclosure is partial.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that convey the core action and a key behavioral condition. No filler or redundant information.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential functionality. It lacks details on error handling or prerequisites, but for a straightforward add operation, it is reasonably complete.

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 already includes descriptions for both parameters (library and endpoint), providing meaning. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema offers. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 adds a library to an endpoint's requirements.txt, which is a specific action. It also mentions a conditional behavior (skips if preinstalled). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools that add specific services (e.g., action_add_milvus), so it could be more precise about scope.

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 usage guidance is provided beyond the basic action. There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives like action_add_postgresql or action_add_secret, nor conditions or prerequisites for using it.

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