install_capability

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Pull onto the shelf' hints at a fetch-or-copy side effect, but the description does not explain whether this is destructive, requires authentication, contacts a remote source, modifies the project, or is idempotent.

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 short, but brevity is not effective here because the core terms are vague and metaphorical. It spends its two sentences on jargon instead of clearly stating the operation, target, and parameters.

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 four required parameters and no annotations or schema descriptions, this description is not complete enough for reliable tool selection or invocation. An agent still does not know what 'shelf' means, what a 'capability' consists of, or what side effects 'pull onto the shelf' will have.

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%, and the description only weakly maps to parameters: 'whole pack' suggests pack, 'project' suggests project, 'version or latest' hints at the version parameter, and 'shelf' may relate to working_folder. However, it does not formally define any parameter, acceptable values, or required formats, leaving the agent to guess.

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 offers a rough sense of purpose: a project should use the whole pack at a specified version or 'latest', and the tool 'pulls' it onto a 'shelf'. This weakly distinguishes it from sibling tools like install_stanza and install_skill by focusing on a whole pack, but the action is expressed metaphorically and never explicitly says 'install a capability'.

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?

There is no clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as install_stanza, install_skill, fetch_pack, or uninstall_capability. The phrase 'if needed' is the only conditional signal, but it does not specify when the need arises or what conditions justify invoking this tool.

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