Claude Agents Power

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'install' but doesn't specify whether this is a write operation, requires permissions, has side effects like overwriting files, or involves network calls. This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented for a tool that likely modifies a system.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy to grasp quickly without any wasted 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?

Given the complexity of installing agents (likely involving file system changes and network operations), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavior, error handling, or what happens post-installation, making it incomplete for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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?

The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the input schema provides. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline score is 3. The description doesn't elaborate on parameter meanings, such as what 'agentNames' represent or how 'targetPath' is validated, but the schema adequately covers these details.

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 action ('install') and target ('multiple sub-agents to a project directory'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'refresh-agents' or 'list-agents', which could involve similar resources but different operations.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing project directory, or compare it to siblings like 'refresh-agents' for updates or 'list-agents' for viewing installed agents, leaving usage context unclear.

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