Plan component installation

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

Annotations already declare it read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and not open-world. The description adds value by clarifying that it returns a structured plan with dependencies and provider needs, which supplements the annotations. No contradiction exists.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that lists all meaningful outputs without waste. It could be improved with minor structural breaks (e.g., bullet points) for readability, but the information density is high and efficient.

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 one simple parameter, 100% schema coverage, and annotations covering safety/read-only behavior, the description adequately completes the picture by detailing the return value. The presence of an output schema further lessens the burden. Minor gap: no mention if component must already exist or how errors are handled.

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% (one param, 'name', with a clear description). The description does not repeat the schema but adds context about the output (what the plan includes). Since coverage is perfect, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the extra description of what the name parameter yields justifies a 4.

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 a specific verb ('List') and enumerates the exact resources returned (dependencies, gaps, requirements, notes, license, URLs, command). This distinguishes it well from siblings like find_component (search) and check_component (validate), by focusing on a detailed installation/planning report.

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 this should be used to get a comprehensive plan before installing, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings like skip_list or alternatives. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or when NOT to use this tool (e.g., if you only need a quick availability check).

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