detect_substrate_enabled

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description still adds value: it asserts the call always succeeds regardless of state, discloses the exact underlying source (Substrate::IsSubstrateEnabled) and cvar, and explains why a disabled result cannot be remedied through this tool.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the follow-up sentences are short. Minor redundancy: the return shape is described inline and then restated in the 'Returns:' block, which costs a little tightness.

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 and no parameters, the description carries the full burden and meets it: it documents the exact return fields and types, explains the optional note, and states the enabling constraint. Nothing needed to call or interpret it is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is no parameter meaning to add beyond the schema.

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 ('Report whether') and resource ('Substrate (Strata) materials enabled in this editor'), which cleanly separates it from sibling Substrate tools like connect_substrate_slab_to_material or create_substrate_slab_node that mutate materials. An agent knows immediately this is a read-only diagnostic.

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?

'Always works' tells the agent there are no preconditions for calling it, and the note that enabling Substrate requires editing config and restarting the editor tells the agent this tool cannot be used to enable it. No explicit alternative tool is named, but the context is clear.

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