install_dependencies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that explicit execution timing is supported, explains on_timeout behavior, and mentions that 'continue_background' returns a durable job_id. However, it does not describe side effects, permission requirements, or failure behavior.

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 relatively short (two sentences) but could be more efficiently structured. The first sentence repeating the tool name is unnecessary. The second sentence provides useful parameter advice but could be broken into bullet points for 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?

With 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotation, the description should cover more. It omits explanation of critical parameters like path and command, and does not describe the output schema even though one exists. The description is incomplete given the tool's complexity.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains timing-related parameters (expected_runtime_seconds, timeout_seconds, check_after_seconds, poll_interval_seconds, on_timeout) but does not mention path, command, or background, leaving those parameters unexplained. The explanation is partial and insufficient.

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 does not clearly state what the tool does beyond the name 'install_dependencies'. It focuses on execution timing parameters but fails to describe the core functionality. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like exec_command or sandbox_exec.

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 provides guidance on how to set parameters like expected_runtime_seconds and on_timeout, with specific advice on when to use 'continue_background' vs 'kill'. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, missing tool selection context from sibling list.

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