install_package

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the explicit confirmation requirement under security.require_confirmation, which is useful. However, it does not disclose side effects like modifying the environment, network access, or potential impact on existing packages.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence adds a useful behavioral note without any wordiness.

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?

For a simple package installer with a full input schema and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and a key edge case (confirmation). It does not elaborate on interactions between parameters like version and upgrade, but those are not critical for basic usage.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond noting the confirmation requirement, which is already captured in the confirm parameter's schema description.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Install a Python package with pip.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like uninstall_package and npm_install, which handle different ecosystems or actions.

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 tool's purpose implies when to use it (installing Python packages), but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternatives might be better. The mention of a confirmation requirement is more behavioral than a usage guideline.

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