Install ~alter

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

Annotations already mark it readOnly and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral detail by listing the returned contents (endpoint URL, JSON snippet, tool counts) and the 'Free L0' cost tier, which is helpful beyond the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler: first states what the tool does, second states when to use it, third states expected return contents. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter read-only information tool, the description is fully complete: it names the return payload and the installation context. No output schema exists, but the described return items are sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret the result.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; the schema coverage is trivially 100%. A baseline of 4 is appropriate because no parameter documentation burden exists.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get ~Alter MCP server installation instructions.' This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like alter_resolve_handle or get_network_stats, and the title reinforces the install context.

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 gives explicit triggers: 'Use this when setting up ~alter in a new MCP client or sharing the endpoint with another agent.' It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the stated context is clear enough to route an agent.

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