Get Install Steps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds genuinely new behavioral information by disclosing that the response contains files and their loading order, which annotations and schema do not convey. It still omits the response format (code blocks, markdown, structured list) and whether output size varies by setup.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the core output (the code) is front-loaded. The phrasing 'The code to add the kit to a project' is slightly oblique for a tool whose title is 'Get Install Steps', but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by naming what comes back: install code, files, and load order. However, for a tool whose entire value is the returned artifact, it should also indicate the format of that artifact and whether version changes it. Adequate but with a real gap given the absence of an output schema.

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 100%, and the enum values already explain each setup type in detail, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's phrase 'for one kind of setup' merely restates the setup parameter's role and says nothing about the version parameter or its default-to-latest behavior. Baseline 3 applies when the schema is fully documented.

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 resource: the code needed to add the kit to a project, scoped to one kind of setup, including the files and their loading order. That is concrete enough to separate it from get_component or get_conventions, but it never names or contrasts those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Nothing tells the agent whether to reach for get_install versus get_component when starting a project, and no prerequisites or follow-up steps are mentioned. The only usage signal is the implicit 'one kind of setup' scoping.

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