install_obs_package

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

The description enriches the destructiveHint annotation by detailing the multi-step workflow: fetching OBS metadata, analyzing spec file, blocking on critical issues, and adding repo then installing via zypper. It also discloses sudo requirement and SUSE-only limitation. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the single annotation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a numbered workflow that earns its place. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary detail, making it highly scannable.

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?

The description covers prerequisites (SUSE, sudo), the security-check workflow, and the installation mechanism. It does not mention return values or that the added OBS repo persists, but given the simple schema and destructiveHint annotation, it is reasonably complete for an install operation.

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 schema already describes package_name as 'Name of package to install from OBS' with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional parameter-level details, so it meets the baseline of 3 for schema-covered parameters.

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 explicitly states the tool 'Install a package from OBS with security checks', using a specific verb and resource. The workflow further clarifies the security-checking aspect, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_obs or audit_obs_security which are not install tools.

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 clear context for when to use: 'Only works on SUSE Linux' and 'Requires sudo access', plus the workflow indicates it is for installing with security checks. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, so it lacks the highest level of guidance.

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