ubuntu_install_package

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 clearly states the tool is read-only, does not install packages, uses `apt list --installed`, passes through command-security validation, and returns a unified `{ok, data|error}` JSON contract. This gives strong transparency about side effects and output 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 compact and well-organized: a first-line functional summary, a clarification of the misleading name, an Args section, and a Returns section. Every sentence adds necessary value and there is 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?

Despite no annotations, the description covers the tool's actual behavior, parameter meaning, safety characteristics, and return contract. For a read-only inspection tool with two parameters, this is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. The only minor gap is explicit sibling comparison, but that is addressed under usage guidelines.

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 compensate. It fully explains both parameters: `package_name` includes an explicit regex pattern, and `detailed` explains the behavioral difference between True and False. This is more informative than the bare schema properties alone.

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 and resource: 'Check installed-package status using `apt list --installed`.' It explicitly corrects the misleading tool name by saying it does not install packages, which removes ambiguity. This clearly distinguishes it from an installation action and clarifies its role as an inspection helper.

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 gives implied usage context by calling itself a 'read-only package inspection helper' and noting it passes 'command-security validation.' However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus siblings like ubuntu_search_packages or ubuntu_execute_command, nor does it state when not to use it.

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