Discover Proton ecosystem binaries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the specific output focus (binaries + auth status) but does not describe behavior like return format or whether it scans the system. Given annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 extremely concise—a single phrase with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, being overly terse may omit useful details.

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 simple discovery tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose. However, it lacks details about the output format and the scope of 'Proton product binaries'. The absence of parameter documentation also reduces completeness.

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 single parameter (response_format) is not mentioned in the description. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent must rely solely on the schema enum definition. The description adds no value for parameter semantics.

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 tool discovers which Proton product binaries are installed and their authentication status. It distinguishes from sibling tools like proton_ecosystem_health (overall health) and proton_ecosystem_check_updates (update checking). However, the phrasing is a question fragment rather than an imperative statement, slightly reducing clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., proton_ecosystem_health or proton_drive_auth_status). The agent receives no context about prerequisites or appropriate scenarios.

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