auto-install

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

Discloses idempotency, writes files, and requires restart. Mentions parameters like 'action' for install vs check. No annotations provided, so description carries the burden; missing details on error handling or permissions, but sufficient for typical use.

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?

All sentences serve a purpose: front-loaded with the critical action, then idempotency warning, then usage instructions. No fluff.

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?

Covers prerequisites, process, and next steps (ack-restart). No output schema, but description implicitly conveys behavior. Could mention failure handling, but adequate given the setup nature.

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%, so baseline 3. Description adds minimal value beyond schema: it hints at 'install' vs 'check' but doesn't elaborate on other parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Description uses specific verb ('install') and resource ('kit'), clearly stating it integrates project kit into the host's native layout to make agents, skills, and commands available. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'sync' and 'install' by specifying it's for first-contact setup.

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?

Explicitly states 'IMPORTANT for first contact', 'Run once per project on first kit-mcp contact', and instructs to restart the IDE session after. Also notes re-running is a no-op if already in sync, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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