Engine Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat them. It adds behavioral context by specifying the exact engine list (ast-grep, semgrep, gitleaks, trivy, biome, ripgrep, fd) and that it covers installation guidance for missing ones—details beyond the annotations that help an agent understand the tool's scope.

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?

A single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core purpose (availability check) and then specifies the engine list and installation guidance. No filler, no repetition, and every phrase carries meaning.

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 parameterless, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description fully captures what an agent needs: the exact scope (which engines) and what it will receive (availability plus install steps). There are no missing behavior or input considerations.

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 has zero parameters, making schema coverage trivially 100%. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed, and the baseline for zero-param tools is 4. There is no parameter detail to miss; the description aligns with the empty input 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?

The description states an explicit verb ('which ... are available') and a specific resource (analysis engines on this machine), listing the exact engines covered. It clearly differentiates itself from the numerous scanning tools in the sibling list by focusing on engine availability and installation, not scanning results.

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?

Though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the description makes the use case unambiguous: to check installed engines and obtain installation instructions. Given the tool's self-contained nature and zero parameters, an agent can readily infer when to invoke it, even without naming siblings.

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