kratos_install

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses installation time, download size, immediate importability, and platform limitations. It does not mention what happens if an existing installation is present or overwritten, but it covers the key behavioral aspects beyond the bare action.

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 several sentences long but each sentence adds distinct value, from the core install action to platform caveats to post-install behavior. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary filler, though it could be trimmed slightly without losing essential details.

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 tool's complexity (platform constraints, package options, time/resource implications) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides strong contextual coverage: it tells the user what to expect during install, which platforms are supported, and that no restart is needed. The only gap is the undocumented 'upgrade' param and a lack of explicit return-value details, but the output schema partially covers the latter.

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 must explain the parameters. It thoroughly explains 'applications' with examples and 'all' as a switch to the omnibus package, but it does not explain the 'upgrade' parameter at all. This leaves one of three parameters ambiguous, so the description only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Install Kratos Multiphysics via pip into this server's own Python environment'. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like kratos_check_installation and kratos_list_applications by describing an installation action with a defined target environment.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool, including platform constraints (macOS requires a local build) and a preference for naming only needed applications to avoid large downloads. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the guidance about when not to use it (macOS) and when to use the 'all' option is strong.

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