Get install commands

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds genuine extra context beyond that—prerequisite registry setup, the free-vs-Pro distinction, and the @ballmac-pro/<name> naming convention. It doesn't state rate limits or pagination, but for a command-generator that's minor.

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 dense, front-loaded sentences that lead with the purpose and then layer the setup prerequisites. Every sentence carries workflow information with no filler, though the back half packs multiple conditional rules that could be slightly clearer.

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, and the description covers the registry/setup workflow and Pro handling well. The main gap is the undocumented `packageManager` parameter, which leaves the definition slightly incomplete for a tool whose output varies by package manager.

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% and neither parameter is documented in the schema. The phrase 'one or more items' loosely implies the `names` array, but `packageManager` (an enum of pnpm/npm/yarn/bun) is never mentioned in the description, so the agent gets no guidance on a parameter that materially changes the output.

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 resource ('the shadcn CLI commands to add one or more items to the user's project'), so an agent knows it returns install commands rather than items or examples. It implicitly separates itself from the setup steps it names, but does not explicitly reference sibling tools like get_setup or get_item, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Gives concrete workflow conditions: run `setup` once if components.json lacks the @ballmac registry, then `add`; `byUrl` works without setup for free items; Pro items need `proSetup`. This is clear when-to-use guidance, though it doesn't name the alternative sibling tools or state exclusions explicitly.

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