torch_capabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verbs 'probe', 'inspect', 'detect', and 'review' strongly imply a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is conveyed. However, the description does not explicitly state the operation is safe/read-only, nor does it disclose failure behavior (e.g., what happens if torch_path is invalid or a subcommand is unsupported) or potential slowness from probing an external binary.

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 sentence front-loaded with the core action ('Probe Torch executable') followed by a compact list of distinct aspects. Efficient and free of waste, though packing four actions into one sentence slightly blurs each item's clarity. Every clause earns its place.

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?

This is a moderately complex tool (8 subcommand enum values, external binary dependency) with no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry more weight. It covers the 'what' but not the 'what you get back' — there is no indication of return format or how to interpret detected features/asset types. The cryptic enum values are also left unexplained. For a discovery tool, this is a notable 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. Both parameters are well-described in the schema (subcommand queries CLI11 help; torch_path overrides binary path), and the tool description reinforces the subcommand concept. However, the 8 enum values (otr, o2r, code, binary, header, pack, hashes, modding, ui) are cryptic abbreviations that neither the schema nor the description explains, leaving meaning for the agent to guess.

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 specific action verbs (Probe, inspect, detect, review) against a clear resource (Torch executable) and enumerates four distinct things it covers: CLI subcommands, compiled features, asset types, and upstream caveats. This clearly distinguishes it from all operational siblings (validate, render, export, import, pack, hash), which act on projects rather than introspect the binary itself. However, some specifics remain fuzzy — 'compiled features' and 'upstream caveats' are vague terms an agent can't fully act on.

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 usage context is implied rather than stated: as an introspection/discovery tool among purely operational siblings, it is naturally a precursor to the export/pack/import tools. But the description never explicitly says when to use it, when not to, or names an alternative (e.g., 'use torch_diagnose_binary for binary-level debugging'). The guidance is left to inference from sibling names.

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