install_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses downloads (version json, client jar, libraries), destinations (<workdir>/versions/<id>/ and <workdir>/libraries/), duration ('can take a few minutes'), and asset behavior (downloaded by HMCL at first launch). This is rich behavioral context, though it doesn't state overwrite behavior or return status.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with action, no redundant phrases. Every sentence adds meaningful detail about install behavior and locations.

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 one-parameter install operation with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what, where, time, and asset handling. It does not explicitly mention prerequisites (e.g., HMCL already installed) or what happens on success/failure, which prevents a higher score.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes the version parameter with an example. The description adds little beyond restating the example and context, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Install') and identifies the resource ('a vanilla Minecraft version'), with an example '1.20.4'. It distinguishes from siblings like install_modpack by specifying 'vanilla' and 'through the HMCL agent'.

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 implies use for installing a specific vanilla version but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention exclusions. For example, it doesn't say 'use install_modpack for modpacks' or note that HMCL must be installed first.

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