rba_install_autoexec

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a key safety behavior ('backing up any existing file first'), which is valuable. However, it does not mention overwrite behavior, error handling, permissions, or whether the operation is reversible beyond the backup, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes a crucial qualifier about backup. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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's simplicity, the description is adequate but not complete. It explains the core action and backup, but because there is no output schema or annotations, it should explain return values, failure modes, or whether a restart is needed. These gaps make it minimally viable but not fully contextualized.

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 50%: sourcePath is documented, but targetPath is not. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, and targetPath remains ambiguous despite having a default. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation, so the agent gets incomplete parameter guidance.

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 a specific verb ('Install'), a resource ('RBA autoloader'), and a target ('executor autoexec path'), along with a key behavior (backing up existing file). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rba_sync_autoexec or rba_set_autorun by focusing on installing the current autoloader to an autoexec path.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., rba_sync_autoexec, rba_install_console_mirror). It states what the tool does but not the scenarios or conditions that would call for it, nor when not to use it.

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