install_package_manager

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects. It does not mention that installation modifies the system, whether elevated permissions are required, or what happens if the package manager already exists. The mutating nature is only implied by the verb.

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 a single sentence that is direct and free of fluff. It front-loads the core action and uses an example to add context without unnecessary length.

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?

For a system-modifying installation tool, the description is too thin. It fails to explain how 'if needed' is determined, what package managers are supported, or how this tool relates to siblings like check_environment or setup_all. No output schema or annotations compensate.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing to document. The baseline for 0 params is 4; the description adds no parameter information because none is needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Install') and resource ('package manager'), with a concrete example ('Homebrew on macOS'). It distinguishes from sibling tools that install specific runtimes (install_python, install_nodejs) or perform checks (check_environment), though it doesn't enumerate all supported package managers.

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 phrase 'if needed' implies a precondition check but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like install_tool or setup_all. No exclusions, prerequisites, or workflows are described.

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