package-add

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that the operation modifies manifest.json, triggers package resolution, and may cause a domain reload with results sent after reload. This is good but lacks details on permissions or failure modes.

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?

Five concise sentences with no wasted words. The description front-loads the action, then explains side effects and related tools. Perfectly structured.

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 no output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers installation sources, side effects, and sibling tool pointers. Missing details like error handling or duplicate package behavior, but overall adequate.

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 description provides rich detail on packageId formats, significantly adding value beyond the schema. However, requestId is left completely undescribed, and schema coverage is 50%. The description compensates reasonably well for the main parameter.

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 installs a package from various sources (registry, Git, local) and modifies manifest.json. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning 'package-search' and 'package-list' for searching and listing packages.

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?

It explicitly recommends using 'package-search' to find packages and 'package-list' to list installed packages, providing clear alternatives for when not to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool for other operations like removal.

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