install_service

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'install' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't specify what 'install' entails (e.g., does it modify system state permanently, require specific permissions, have side effects, or produce specific outputs?). It mentions SSH credentials but doesn't explain authentication requirements or potential failure modes.

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 a single, clear sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand what the tool does.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema that performs what appears to be a system mutation (installation), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens during installation, what success/failure looks like, what permissions are required, or how it differs from similar installation/deployment tools in the sibling list. The description should provide more operational context.

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%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide usage examples, or clarify edge cases. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('install') and target ('homelab service on a target device'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'deploy_vm' or 'run_ansible_playbook' that might also involve installation operations, leaving some ambiguity about when this specific tool should be used versus alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'deploy_vm' or 'run_ansible_playbook'. It mentions 'homelab service' which gives some context, but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or typical scenarios for choosing this installation method over others available in the sibling tool list.

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