lsd_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real behavioral context by noting that LSD's command-line utilities are built automatically on first use, which tells the agent about a side effect of other operations. However, it does not state that lsd_status itself is read-only/non-mutating, nor how quickly it returns or what it does if components are missing.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence beginning 'Show the setup:' followed by a clean enumerated list of checks, so an agent gets the essentials immediately. The awkward line wrapping and slightly run-on structure cost a point but no sentence is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description effectively stands in for one by enumerating the fields the agent will see (source root/tag, models folder, compiler status, utility build state, R availability). That is sufficient for a zero-parameter diagnostic tool, though finer detail on result format or failure signaling is absent.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. Schema coverage is 100% for an empty object, consistent with no per-argument documentation being needed.

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 gives a specific verb ('Show the setup') and enumerates exactly what is reported: LSD source root/tag, models folder, C++ compiler presence, CLI utility build state, and R/Rscript availability. This makes the tool's function unmistakable. It stops short of naming sibling tools like describe_configuration or list_models for explicit differentiation, though the enumerated content is distinct enough in practice.

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 is only implied: the mention that utilities are 'built automatically on first use' hints this is a pre-flight/diagnostic check, but the description never states when to call it (e.g. before compiling or running a configuration) or what alternatives exist. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer the trigger condition.

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