tool_install

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. It only states the high-level action without revealing side effects (e.g., system-wide modification, network access, possibility of overwriting existing versions), which is important for a mutating tool.

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 sentence with no redundant wording, and it front-loads the core action. While it is concise, it may be slightly too minimal, but it remains well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

The description is minimally complete: it states the purpose, and parameter details are fully covered by the schema, and an output schema exists. However, it lacks behavioral side effects and usage guidance, which would help an agent use it correctly, resulting in a mid-range 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 description coverage is 100% and each parameter already has a clear description (package name, optional version, optional Python interpreter). The tool description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score 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 clearly states the action ('Install') and the target resource ('a package as a globally available uv tool'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like pip_install or add. The phrase 'globally available uv tool' provides specific scope and intent.

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 context is implied through the phrase 'globally available uv tool', suggesting this is for installing CLI tools rather than project dependencies. However, there is no explicit mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no naming of alternative tools.

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