setup_build_tools

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) already declare the mutation and safety profile. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it notes the operation can take several minutes, which affects agent timeout/polling decisions. It does not disclose idempotency, network/auth requirements, or what happens on partial failure.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb/resource, then rationale, then the duration caveat. No filler and nothing repeated from structured fields.

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-required-parameter install tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisite relationship, and runtime cost. Missing only edge-case behavior (already-installed repos, failure modes), which keeps it just under full completeness.

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%, and the repo parameter's description already documents path resolution, the default, and pointers to list_repos. The description adds only that the target is a repo's dependencies, so it neither compensates for nor enriches beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 (Install) plus resource (build dependencies / `npm install`) and immediately ties it to its downstream purpose: enabling run_build / run_audit. The agent can distinguish it from siblings like git_clone or doctor without opening a schema.

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?

Makes the trigger condition explicit — run this so run_build / run_audit work — and names those sibling tools, giving a clear prerequisite relationship. It does not state when NOT to run it (e.g., when deps already installed), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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