ep_install_preflight

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

Annotations already mark it as readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description goes further by detailing the returns ('allow / review / deny with reasons') and the evaluation factors (publisher, permissions, provenance, trust history), providing rich behavioral context.

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 only two sentences, with the first sentence immediately stating the purpose and trigger in imperative form. No wasted words; every sentence provides essential information.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, usage context, evaluation criteria, and return types well. However, it does not detail the trust policy structure or provide comparisons to sibling tools, which would make it even more complete.

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?

All three parameters are described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the policy types enumerated (github_private_repo_safe_v1, npm_buildtime_safe_v1, etc.) beyond the schema's generic description, and by contextualizing the install process.

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 'BEFORE installing or enabling third-party software an agent depends on — check it here.' It specifies the verb (check), resource (third-party software), and scope (pre-installation). The description distinguishes the tool from its siblings by explicitly defining its unique role as a preflight check.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'BEFORE installing or enabling third-party software.' It provides clear context for usage, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings.

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