get_install_command

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states the tool is read-only, idempotent, and never modifies anything. It also describes the return format. This is strong disclosure for a simple read tool.

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 succinct with three focused paragraphs: purpose, usage guidelines, and return/safety. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary detail.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: return format, usage context, parameter defaults, and behavioral traits. No gaps identified.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the context for package manager detection, defaults, and examples for package subsets. This enriches parameter understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: returning the exact shell command to install UploadKit packages for a given package manager. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_components or get_doc.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use: before asking the user to add dependencies, and to match the package manager. It suggests detection based on lockfiles. While it does not explicitly list exclusions, the sibling tools are distinct enough that no confusion arises.

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