Auto-locate umodel executable

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the verification process with verify=true, the 'remembered' exe behavior, and the unconfirmed state when multiple candidates exist. It also warns about version/game compatibility, giving the agent important side-effect and safety context beyond the tool's simple search purpose.

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 longer than average, but every sentence contributes important caveats (fallback usage, confirmation workflow, version compatibility). It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Search common locations...') and then logically proceeds to usage guidance and warnings. Slightly dense but justified by the safety-critical selection logic.

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?

Given no output schema, the description does not fully describe return format, but it implies the candidate list and unconfirmed status enough for the agent to understand the workflow. It provides complete context about when to use, verify behavior, and the required user confirmation step. It lacks explicit failure behavior when no executable is found, but that is a minor gap.

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 each parameter already has a description, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that verify=true causes the newest candidate to be 'tested via -version and remembered,' and it reinforces how 'dirs' fits with the search behavior. This is meaningful value added over the schema alone.

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 and resource ('Search common locations... for umodel executables') and lists concrete executable names. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like umodel_version or pak_list by focusing on locating executables rather than operating on game data.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'ONLY use this as a fallback when the user does not know the umodel path or provided an invalid one — always ask the user for the path first.' It also defines exclusion behavior for multiple candidates: show the list, ask the user, and never pick a version yourself. This directly tells the agent when and how to use the tool.

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