install_component

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full burden. It lists the returned fields (install command, dependencies, etc.) but does not disclose potential side effects, access permissions, rate limits, or any additional behavioral details beyond the return content.

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: a two-sentence main description followed by a clear Args listing. The first sentence front-loads the purpose. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 has only one required parameter and an output schema exists (not shown but indicated), the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how to use it. The examples for slug provide additional clarity.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage (no description in JSON Schema for the slug parameter). However, the description's Args section adds meaning with examples (e.g., 'spotlight', 'sidebar', 'bento-grid') and explains that it is a component slug, which compensates for the schema gap.

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 explicitly states 'Get full installation instructions for a component.' It identifies a specific resource (installation instructions) and a clear action (get). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_component' (likely returns component details) and 'list_components'.

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 description implies usage for retrieving installation instructions but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state when not to use it. There is no mention of exclusions or context where another sibling tool would be more appropriate.

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