install_freerouting

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the install path, the Java-version compatibility mapping, and that Freerouting is GPL-3.0 and runs as a separate program. However it omits key behavioral facts: network/download requirements, whether an existing install is overwritten, and failure modes.

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?

Front-loaded and efficient, leading with the action and destination. The Args section is slightly redundant with the prose but adds the version format example, so it earns most of its space.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained. For a single-parameter install tool the description covers location, version logic, and licensing well; only overwrite/idempotency and network behavior are missing.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does: it defines 'auto' semantically and gives the format for an explicit argument ('2.1.0'), which the bare schema (string, default auto) does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb (Download) and resource (official Freerouting release jar) plus the exact destination (~/.kicad10_mcp/freerouting). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling freerouting_status, which only reports state.

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 'auto' selection policy implicitly tells the agent this is a setup/install step, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance (e.g. run before autoroute) or when-not to use it (e.g. when a version is already installed). Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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