pack_install

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the tool downloads, verifies checksums, and requires confirmation, which goes beyond the schema. However, it omits side effects like overwriting existing files, network requirements, or failure handling.

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 that is front-loaded with action verbs and contains no filler. Every word adds meaning.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It lacks details on target format, destination semantics, potential side effects, and error behavior, making it incomplete but not grossly deficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'target' is a CMSIS-Pack and that 'confirm' is a confirmation step, but 'destination' is not explained, and target format remains unspecified.

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 specific verbs ('Download and checksum-verify') with a clear resource ('managed CMSIS-Pack') and a condition ('after confirmation'). This precisely states the tool's function and differentiates it from sibling tools like pack_diagnose.

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?

Usage is implied ('install a pack') but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor mention of alternatives such as pack_diagnose. The confirmation requirement provides some context but does not address exclusion scenarios.

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