install_command

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the agent knows it's a safe query. The description adds that it returns {primary, variants[]}, providing behavioral insight beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Two concise sentences with front-loaded purpose and clear sections for USE WHEN and RETURNS. No wasted words, every sentence adds value.

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 the tool's simplicity, the description covers its purpose, usage context, and return value. It lacks details on error handling or edge cases, but these are minimal in a query-only tool. The lack of output schema is mitigated by describing the return shape.

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 33% with only 'version' having a description. The description mentions ecosystem examples like 'npm/pnpm/yarn/bun' but does not detail the parameter semantics for 'ecosystem' or 'package' beyond the schema. Given low coverage, it partially compensates but could do more.

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 it provides canonical install commands across many package managers, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are mostly about checking or comparing packages.

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?

Explicitly states 'USE WHEN: emitting an install line and you want correct flags.' This tells the agent when to invoke it. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but there are no sibling tools with similar functionality.

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