Auto-provision OmniCinema (consent required)

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

The description details all major actions (clone, install, build, start service, sync token) and notes that it refuses unpinned URLs. It does not cover prerequisites or potential side effects (e.g., overwriting), but given no annotations, it provides reasonable transparency.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the trigger condition, actions, and constraint. It is slightly lengthy but each clause adds necessary detail. The structure is logical.

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 simple single-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior well. Missing details like prerequisites or error handling are acceptable for a tool with clear consent and a specific action.

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% with a clear description for 'confirm'. The tool description adds value by explaining that confirm must be true to trigger the entire process, reinforcing the schema's requirement.

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 auto-provisions OmniCinema by cloning a pinned repo, installing dependencies, building, starting an IPC service, and syncing a bearer token. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'omnicinema_status' by focusing on provisioning rather than querying status.

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 one wants to set up OmniCinema with free assets, requiring explicit consent via confirm=true. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives, but the context is clear given sibling tools.

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