kernel_marketplace_catalog_install

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does add two non-obvious behavioral facts: the call routes through ExtensionService, and it accepts a broad class of item types. It still omits mutation semantics that matter for an install operation: required permissions or auth, idempotency or behavior when already installed, side effects on existing configuration, and any notion of undo.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and identifier form before the routing detail. Both sentences carry information, though the trailing 'etc.' is loose and slightly undercuts the enumeration it introduces.

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?

The description is short, but for a one-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the essential calling information is present: what it does, what identifier to pass, the item-type breadth, and the underlying service. The remaining unknowns (permissions, idempotency) are gaps, but they are narrow relative to the tool's simplicity.

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 100% on the single parameter, so the schema already explains that 'id' accepts an id or slug. The description restates that same fact with no additional syntax, format, or resolution-order detail (e.g., which wins if an id and slug collide). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 definition opens with a specific verb and resource ('Install a catalog item') and clarifies the identifier form ('by id or slug'). It also scopes the domain by listing item types (skills, plugins, modules, offices, themes), which prevents the agent from assuming this is skills-only. It does not, however, differentiate itself from near-namesakes such as kernel_marketplace_install or kernel_store_install.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative is offered despite several sibling install tools existing. The only implicit signal is that the tool takes a catalog id/slug, leaving the agent to infer the boundary against kernel_marketplace_install and kernel_store_install.

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