auto-install

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

The description declares idempotency and mentions writing files. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing files with force=true) or authorization requirements. With no annotations, the description carries full burden; a clearer statement about safety would improve 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 concise and well-structured. It front-loads the critical importance and action, then provides post-invocation steps. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, idempotency, and follow-up steps. With no output schema, it does not describe return values, but the main behavior is clear. Minor gap: no mention of error handling or output for different actions (install vs check).

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 clear parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides. It contextualizes the overall workflow but does not elaborate on individual parameters, so it scores at baseline.

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 project kit resources into the host IDE layout. It specifies the resources (agents, skills, commands) and the action (writing files). This distinguishes it from siblings like ack-restart (post-install) and install (a simpler variant).

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 when to use ('on first kit-mcp contact'), idempotency, and required follow-up steps (restart IDE, then call ack-restart). This provides complete guidance for correct usage, including what to do after invocation.

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