packagekit_install

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions non-interactive operation and Polkit authorization, which hints at privilege requirements, but it does not disclose system-modifying side effects, possible failure modes (e.g., package not found, dependency conflicts), or what happens if a package is already installed. This is insufficient for a mutation tool without any annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded sentence that starts with the action and resource, then adds technical context. There is no filler or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick parsing.

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?

The description is minimally viable for understanding what the tool does, but it lacks detail on important operational aspects: whether it modifies the system, how success/failure is communicated, and what error conditions might arise. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, an agent would likely need additional context to handle edge cases effectively.

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 parameter 'packages' is fully documented in the schema (space- or comma-separated list). The description adds no extra meaning beyond that, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. It does not clarify details like encoding, defaults, or formatting edge cases that are not already in the 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 clearly states the action (install) and the resource (one or more packages), distinguishing it from sibling tools like packagekit_remove and packagekit_search. The added context of non-interactive installation and delivery via PackageKit D-Bus with Polkit authorization makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies scripted use via 'non-interactively' but does not mention prerequisites (e.g., checking for existing packages) or conditions that would make another sibling tool more appropriate. No exclusions or alternative-selection criteria are offered.

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