check_installed

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by enumerating the five detection strategies and disclosing that a host argument switches to an SSH-based 'which <binary>' check. Only the absence of failure-mode or return-behavior detail keeps it from a 5.

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 purpose, followed by the detection strategies and the remote-host behavior. Three short paragraphs, every sentence carrying information, with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be recounted, and annotations cover the safety profile. Between purpose, detection strategies, and remote-host semantics, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly in either local or remote mode.

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 both parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning by explaining what host actually causes (remote SSH installation check) and anchoring tool_name to tools_config.json, going beyond the schema's phrasing.

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 and resource: 'Check if a specific cybersecurity tool is installed on the system.' This is clearly distinct from run_tool, list_tools, or get_tool_info. It does not explicitly name or route away from those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implies usage by explaining that supplying host triggers a remote SSH check, which hints at the local-vs-remote decision. However, it never says when to use this versus list_tools or get_tool_info, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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