sassy_setup_tools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that install uses 'winget-install' and that add_to_path 're-run PATH bootstrap', which gives insight into the tool's side effects. However, it does not mention potential system modifications, administrative requirements, or failure modes, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 longer than the ideal but structured with line breaks and a clear layout. Every line adds value: the first line states the purpose, the second block defines parameters, and the final block gives dependency context. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool with only two parameters and an output schema present, the description covers all essential aspects: actions, parameter constraints, tool list, and dependency rationale. It could be more complete by addressing error scenarios or post-install verification, but it is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains the 'action' parameter by listing and defining all four valid values, and clarifies that 'tool_name' is only used for action=install while also listing the valid tool names. This adds rich meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 starts with a specific verb-object phrase 'Manage external tool dependencies' and enumerates the exact tools (tesseract, adb, nmap, plink, scrcpy, cloudflared). It lists four distinct actions with clear semantics, making the tool's purpose unmistakable, even in the presence of similar sibling tools like sassy_setup_check_tools.

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 provides clear context for when to use each action (check, install, install_required, add_to_path) and explains dependency relationships (e.g., 'tesseract is always required', 'adb + scrcpy are needed for Android tools'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the action-level guidance is strong.

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