install_relayer

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It honestly details side effects: fetching from releases.scpri.me, writing a .env, running docker compose up -d, and falling back to a bundled copy if the fetch fails. It also notes the user doesn't need to author files, which is a useful behavioral cue.

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 compact, front-loaded with the primary action, and uses a few sentences to pack essential operational details without waste.

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 complex installation tool, the description covers the source, the installation mechanism, fallback behavior, and the override path. It lacks explicit mention of port defaults or prerequisites, but the schema supplies port defaults and no output schema is needed.

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?

The schema already describes all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying compose_url as an override, but does not deepen the meaning of s3_port, ui_port, or install_path beyond the schema.

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 'Install and start the XNS Relayer' using a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling health/restart/status tools. It also specifies the default bundle and monitoring stack, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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?

It explains the default behavior (canonical beta bundle, anonymous pull) and when to use the override ('Pass compose_url only to override with a custom compose'). However, it does not explicitly mention any exclusions or alternatives among the sibling tools, such as checking prerequisites with check_prerequisites.

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