install_component

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'generates' commands, implying it's a read-only operation that produces instructions rather than executing them, but doesn't clarify whether this requires network access, has side effects, or what format the output takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word earning its place. No structural issues or redundancy are present.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the generated commands look like, whether they're executable scripts or documentation snippets, or how to handle the output. For a command-generation tool with behavioral uncertainty, more context is needed.

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 thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage through the schema alone, with no value added by the 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Generates') and resource ('installation commands for Starwind UI components'). It distinguishes this from potential siblings like 'update_component' by focusing on installation rather than updates. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'init_project' which might also involve installation commands.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_component' or 'init_project'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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