Check the setup

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it lists exactly what gets inspected (kits, versions, Chrome, ffmpeg, and file save location), which tells an agent this is a passive diagnostic that probes the local environment.

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 two sentences with no waste. The first sentence front-loads the information the tool returns, and the second gives the trigger condition.

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 zero-parameter diagnostic, the description names the categories of information it returns. However, there is no output schema, so the description must cover return behavior, and it does not say how the results are presented (such as a status summary or a report) or whether failures are surfaced as errors. It is adequate, but it leaves some ambiguity about the shape of the response.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify about argument meaning. The baseline score for a zero-parameter tool applies.

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 the specific verb 'Shows' with a concrete inventory: available kits and their versions, Chrome/ffmpeg detection, and the save location for files. That is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like list_jobs or make_brand_kit, which handle job state and creation rather than environment diagnostics.

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 description gives an explicit trigger: 'Use it when a tool is missing or a kit fails to start.' This is good diagnostic guidance, but it does not mention alternatives or exclusion cases, such as when waiting on an existing job would be the better first move rather than re-checking setup.

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