auto-install

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states idempotency ('re-running is a no-op'), the action of writing files, and the need for an IDE restart. It does not cover error cases or permission requirements, but the core safety and behavior are well-explained.

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 front-loaded with an IMPORTANT note and covers all key points in a single paragraph. While it includes specific numbers (86, 103, 99) that add detail, it is still concise and well-structured, with no unnecessary repetition.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides solid context for the main use case (first contact install) but omits explanation of the 'check' action and does not elaborate on parameter behavior like 'force'. The completeness is adequate for a simple installation tool but leaves minor gaps.

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 is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; for example, it mentions the 'install' action but not the 'check' action. The parameter details (force, target, projectRoot) are adequately documented in the schema, and the description does not explain them further.

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's purpose: installing the project kit into the host's native layout to make agents, skills, and commands available. It uses specific, actionable language ('project kit/ into the host's native layout') and distinguishes its role from sibling tools like 'ack-restart' by describing the follow-up steps.

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 explicit usage instructions: run once per project on first contact, restart IDE, then call ack-restart. It notes idempotency, implying re-use is not harmful. However, it does not directly differentiate from the sibling 'install' tool or cover when not to use this tool.

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