install_command

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description goes beyond these by detailing the return shape ({primary, variants[]}) and the broad scope ('every package manager'), adding useful context about what the agent can expect.

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 concise and well-structured in three logical chunks: purpose, usage condition, and return format. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant phrasing.

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 simple tool with three parameters and clear annotations, the combination of purpose, usage condition, return format, and read-only/idempotent annotations provides a solid understanding. It could mention error behavior or how version defaults work, but overall it is sufficiently complete for agent invocation.

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 low (33%); only 'version' has a description. The description lists example package managers, making 'ecosystem' semantics clear via the enum, and 'package' is self-evident as a package name. However, it does not clarify edge cases like scope syntax or version format, so the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 identifies the resource being operated on (install commands) and the specific action (returning canonical versions) across all major package managers. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that check, compare, or scan packages rather than generating install snippets.

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 explicit 'USE WHEN' clause tells the agent exactly when to invoke this tool (emitting install lines with correct flags). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but sibling names make the distinction clear.

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