install_dependency

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure. It warns about the interactive sudo prompt (polkit), states Linux-only, specifies the whitelist, and notes the side effect on paste strategy after wtype install. Missing details on error handling and return value, but critical behaviors are covered.

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 concise (4 sentences) and well-structured: main purpose first, then warning, then details, then post-install guidance, and finally dry-run tip. Every sentence adds value without fluff.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers essential aspects: purpose, method, prerequisites (whitelist, Linux), critical warning, side effects, and dry-run. It omits return format and error handling but still provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool appropriately.

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% with both parameters described. The description adds meaningful context: for 'tool' it reiterates the whitelist and OS constraints beyond the schema enum, and for 'dryRun' it provides a usage tip. This extra information justifies a 4 above baseline 3.

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 'install a missing system tool via the distro package manager wrapped in pkexec', specifying the verb, resource, and method. It distinguishes from sibling tools like install_dependency_async by implying synchronous interactive behavior and mentions the whitelist and Linux-only constraint.

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: warns about interactive polkit prompt and advises informing the user, suggests using dryRun=true for preview, and recommends re-checking list_paste_strategies after wtype install. However, it does not explicitly compare with install_dependency_async or other alternatives, lacking exclusions.

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