Ensure Core Installed

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the core behavioral traits. The description adds the command used (arduino-cli core install) but does not elaborate on failure modes or prerequisites like network access.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence contributes meaning.

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 presence of annotations, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the tool's operation and the auto-install mechanism, though it could be slightly more explicit about error handling or invocation context.

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%, and the description does not detail individual parameters beyond mentioning FQBN and auto-install. The schema itself provides clear descriptions, so the description adds little additional semantic value.

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 the tool's purpose: ensuring the Arduino core for a board FQBN is installed, with auto-install capability. It uniquely identifies this as a core management tool distinct from sibling tools like compile_sketch or install_arduino_cli.

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 implies usage when a core is required for a board, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, though siblings include other installation tools.

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