ginstall

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=true. The description adds behavioral context: default mode 755, --dry_run preview, return format (JSON with paths and status), and details on overwriting and directory creation. It does not contradict annotations.

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 concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the main action. Minor redundancy (e.g., 'Destructive' is already in annotations) but still efficient and clear.

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 6 parameters, full schema coverage, no output schema, the description covers return format and key behaviors (dry_run, default mode). Could be more complete on error handling or edge cases, but adequately supports usage decisions.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-specific info (default mode, --dry_run usage) but does not significantly augment the schema definitions for each 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's purpose: 'Copy files and set attributes like permissions and ownership' and identifies it as a GNU-compatible alias for 'install'. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it's for GNU/BSD semantics and contrasting with 'cp' and 'install'.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use when GNU install semantics or BSD-compatible behavior is needed. Not for simple copying — use 'cp'... Not for the standard install interface — use 'install'.' This clearly defines when and when not to use, with specific alternatives.

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