check_installed

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and largely meets it: it enumerates five detection strategies (.versions, PATH, pipx fallback, /opt, docker image) and discloses the SSH 'which <binary>' behavior for remote hosts. This gives the agent accurate expectations about scope and fallback resolution, though it doesn't mention potential slowness of the docker check or the absence of side effects.

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?

Three sentences, tightly organized: purpose first, then detection strategies in a compact enumeration, then the remote-host behavior. Every sentence carries information and none repeats the schema.

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 tool with a documented output schema, the description covers what the tool does, how it detects, and how it behaves remotely. The only real gap is the lack of when-to-use guidance relative to siblings, which is already penalized under usage_guidelines; overall the definition is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 both parameters already carry descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining how tool_name is resolved (multi-strategy lookups that may succeed outside PATH) and by enriching host with concrete behavior (SSH + 'which <binary>'), justifying a 4.

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 first sentence states a specific verb ('Check') with a specific resource ('if a specific cybersecurity tool is installed on the system'), and the ensuing detection-strategies sentence sharpens what 'check' means. The purpose is inherently distinct from sibling tools like list_tools, get_tool_info, and run_tool, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 makes the primary use case obvious ('check if installed') and explains the remote-host variant, but it never names alternatives or states when not to use this tool—for example, it doesn't advise verifying installation before run_tool or point to recommend_install for missing tools. Usage is implied by the purpose statement rather than explicitly guided.

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