suite_instalar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mutation behavior (writes MCP config when escribir=True) and that it verifies and returns doctor status, which is useful. However, it omits idempotency, overwrite/backup behavior (only the schema mentions 'con respaldo'), failure modes when no harness is found, and any auth or permission requirements.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the outcome before the mechanics, plus a short CLI-equivalence clause. Every element carries information, though the harness enumeration makes it long.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers detection, conditional writing, and the returned doctor status. It does not explain error or rollback behavior, which is the remaining gap given the write operation.

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% with two well-described parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces `escribir=True` semantics and clarifies that the folder is scanned for harnesses, but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (installs/leaves the harness configured and verified) and enumerates exactly what it detects (Claude Code, Cursor, VS Code, dsh, Codex, Antigravity). It also maps itself to the CLI equivalent, letting an agent distinguish it from siblings like suite_doctor and suite_auto_update without opening a schema.

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?

Clear context: a one-step setup/verification tool, equivalent to `openlegal instalar`. The conditional `si escribir=True` tells the agent when the write branch applies. It does not explicitly say when NOT to use it versus suite_doctor or suite_verificar_actualizacion, so it stops just short of an explicit alternative routing.

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