Install Runtimes & Containers

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and read-only behavior; the description adds specific target OS distributions and components. It confirms the tool generates a plan rather than mutating state, which aligns with annotations. It does not, however, describe the plan output format or any error conditions.

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, complete sentence of 20 words, front-loading the primary action and efficiently conveying the tool's purpose, scope, and property of idempotency. No unnecessary words or padding.

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 simple tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core behavior and expected output (a provisioning plan). It lacks detail on the plan's format or how to execute it, but given the context, it provides sufficient completeness for an agent to understand and use the tool.

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% with each parameter described. The tool description mentions 'dynamic version' for Node.js but adds no further details on parameter interactions or defaults beyond what the schema provides. Therefore, it meets the baseline for a fully described schema.

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 generates an idempotent provisioning plan for installing Node.js, PM2, Docker Engine, and Docker Compose across Debian, RHEL, and Alpine Linux. It uses a specific verb 'generates' and identifies all target resources, making it distinct from sibling tools like plan_docker_deployment.

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 context on what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it include any prerequisites or conditions. For instance, it doesn't indicate that this should be used before deployment planning tools.

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