loadInstallation

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

With no annotations provided, the description states that the tool is 'Read-only; does not modify disk,' which discloses its non-destructive nature. However, it lacks details on potential failure modes, required permissions, or other behavioral traits beyond what is stated. This is minimal but adequate for a read-only operation.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the purpose and key behavioral trait (read-only). Every word earns its place; there is no wasted text.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and safety aspect. It is slightly lacking in details about error conditions or the exact meaning of 'activation,' but overall it is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters (game and path) with descriptions. The tool's description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it does not improve parameter understanding. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool activates an installation in memory for subsequent tools, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by implying it's a prerequisite for many tools, but does not explicitly differentiate from openInstallation. The purpose is clear but could be more distinct.

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 an explicit 'Use when' condition for activating an installation. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or compare it to alternative tools like openInstallation. The usage guidance is present but limited.

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