Ensure Package State

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not add new behavioral context. It fails to mention that the tool modifies system state, which is implied but not explicit.

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, concise sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it could be slightly expanded to include context like package manager without sacrificing conciseness.

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 the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, with output schema existing), the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain idempotency or edge cases (e.g., package not found), but the annotations and schema fill some gaps. A more complete description would mention the package manager or dependency handling.

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?

The input schema provides full descriptions (100% coverage) for all three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates 'installed or removed', which is already covered by the 'state' enum. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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 manages package state (installed or removed), distinguishing it from sibling tools like ensure_lines_in_file and ensure_service. However, it lacks specificity about the package manager or platform, which could be ambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as requiring root privileges or a specific package manager, nor does it exclude contexts like unsupported distros.

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