Install Dependencies

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

The description indicates the tool installs dependencies, which is a read-modify operation. The annotations include destructiveHint: true, confirming modification of files. The description does not add further behavioral context (e.g., that it modifies package-lock.json or may overwrite existing node_modules), but given the annotation coverage, this is adequate.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences. The first sentence immediately states the purpose, and the second gives usage guidance. Every word is necessary, and no extraneous information is included.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional parameters, no output schema, destructive annotation), the description covers the essential usage context. It could be improved by mentioning potential side effects (e.g., file system modifications) or prerequisites (e.g., requires Node.js/npm), but these are implied by the tool's nature and annotations.

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?

Both parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds a small extra: for the 'packages' parameter, it notes 'If omitted, runs npm install for all dependencies,' which is implied by the schema. Overall, the description does not significantly add beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool installs npm dependencies in a Varity project. It uses a specific verb ('Install') and resource ('npm dependencies'), and the context 'Use after creating a project or when adding new packages' distinguishes it from sibling tools like varity_init (which creates the project) and varity_build (which builds the project).

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'after creating a project or when adding new packages.' This provides clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or direct the agent to alternative tools for related tasks, such as initial project setup.

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