find_rosetta_scripts

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by detailing the search order (exe_path, ROSETTA_BIN env, common directories, PATH). No behavioral contradictions; the description aligns with the read-only nature.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. Each sentence provides essential information: what the tool does and its intended use.

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 simple lookup tool with annotations, the description covers behavior, usage context, and prerequisites. It does not specify the return value (e.g., path string or null), but that is inferable from the purpose.

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 has one optional parameter 'exe_path' with 0% description coverage. The description mentions checking exe_path but does not explain its role (e.g., whether it overrides other checks or is a fallback). While it adds some meaning, it could be more explicit.

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 uses a specific verb ('resolve') and resource ('rosetta_scripts executable path'), clearly indicating it finds the path. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'run_rosetta_scripts' which runs scripts, and 'check_pyrosetta' which checks PyRosetta.

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 says 'Use to verify Rosetta is installed' and 'Requires local installation', providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives (e.g., use 'run_rosetta_scripts' if you need to execute a script).

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