Package install

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

Annotations already carry the destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false profile, so the safety burden is covered there. The description adds a useful permission/scope restriction ('Developer/full profile only') that the agent cannot derive from the schema, but it does not disclose side effects such as privilege requirements or dependency changes — acceptable but not rich.

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 clauses in a single description — the core action is front-loaded and the package-manager list and profile restriction each earn their place. Zero wasted words.

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 one-parameter tool with a destructive-safety annotation and an output schema present, the description covers the essential facts: what it does, on which platforms, and under which profile. Minor gaps (privilege needs, failure behavior on unsupported OSes) are not critical given the low complexity.

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 0%, so the description bears the burden of explaining the package parameter. It adds context that the string should be a package name resolvable by apt/dnf/pacman/brew, which is genuinely helpful. It stops short of describing accepted formats (e.g., version specifiers, distro-specific names), leaving the agent to guess at syntax.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Install a package') and adds concrete detail by naming the supported package managers (apt/dnf/pacman/brew). The action is inherently distinct from sibling tools like package_search, package_info, package_remove, and package_update, so an agent can differentiate without opening the schema.

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?

Usage context is implied by the verb 'install' and the supported package-manager list, and the 'Developer/full profile only' note gives an access constraint. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives (e.g., using package_update for upgrades or package_remove for uninstalls).

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