Install Composer dependencies

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

The description mentions 'safe non-interactive defaults' and 'auto-detected', but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., updating lock file, failure conditions). Annotations already indicate destructiveness, so description adds limited behavioral context.

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?

Single sentence with no extraneous information, front-loaded with verb and resource. Highly concise.

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?

With no output schema, 5 parameters, and a destructive annotation, the description is too brief. It does not explain return values, error behavior, or how auto-detection works, leaving significant 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 description coverage is low (40%), and the description does not add meaning beyond the schema. It mentions 'auto-detected Composer project' hinting at the project parameter but does not explain other parameters like noDev or optimizeAutoloader.

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 verb 'runs composer install' and the resource 'Composer project', specifying 'safe non-interactive defaults' and 'auto-detected', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like npm_install.

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 implies usage for installing Composer dependencies but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives (e.g., run_command). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite info is provided.

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