install

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses a concurrency constraint ('refused while another agent has claimed it'), latency ('can take minutes'), a prerequisite that a .pkg must first be uploaded via Web File Manager, and the side effect of run=True. It omits permission/auth needs and whether install is reversible.

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 with the core action and scope, then concise per-parameter notes. The mid-sentence newlines make it slightly scannable but the content is tight and earns its place.

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 2-parameter install tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, latency, concurrency guard, and parameter meaning. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, with only permissions/reversibility unstated.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: 'path' is explained with format constraints and the required upload location, and 'run' is explained as starting the .elf once. Minor ambiguity remains about what run=True does for a .pkg.

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+resource ('Install a file from this Mac onto the console') and clarifies the two installable artifact types (.pkg, .elf). It is clear on its own, but it never explicitly differentiates itself from sibling tools like 'push' or 'launch', which an agent must infer from context.

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?

Usage is only implied: use this to install a .pkg or .elf onto the console. There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as 'push', 'launch', or 'uninstall_apps', so the agent must infer the routing.

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