Upgrade Fcop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states that the tool does NOT run pip and explains why, and that it prints a command for the user to run. This is transparent about its non-mutating behavior. It doesn't describe edge cases (e.g., unsupported install methods) but covers the main points.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes necessary context (why it doesn't run pip) without fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what it does, why, and what it doesn't do. It doesn't detail the exact output format, but that's covered by the output schema. The description gives enough context for an agent to know when and how to call it.

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 single parameter 'lang' is fully described in the schema ('Output language, zh or en.'), and the tool description adds no additional context about it. Schema coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description doesn't enhance understanding of the parameter beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('install-method-specific command to upgrade fcop-mcp'), clearly distinguishing it from any sibling tool. The purpose is unambiguous and concrete.

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 explains when this tool is needed (to get the correct upgrade command) and explicitly states why it doesn't run pip directly, providing reasoning. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions beyond that, so it's slightly below a perfect score.

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