check_dotnet

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that missing binaries produce a WARN (not ERROR) for degraded mode, and lists fallback search paths. This adds useful behavioral context beyond the basic functionality.

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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose. It provides necessary detail about the WARN behavior and fallback paths without excessive verbosity. It could be slightly more concise, but it is efficient.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is sufficient. It covers what is returned, the error handling, and how binaries are located. It could clarify the return format slightly, but it is adequate.

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 input schema has zero parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters.

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 clearly states the verb 'Return' and specifies the exact resources: '.NET runtime + re-dotnet-cli + ilspycmd availability'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like classify_dotnet_protection or decompile_method, none of which check availability.

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 context implies this is a pre-flight check, and the warning vs error behavior is explained. However, it does not explicitly say when to use it (e.g., before other tools) or provide alternatives.

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