pm_check_install

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states 'verify installation and configuration' without explaining what that entails (e.g., error handling, return format, side effects). The lack of detail leaves the agent guessing about the tool's exact behavior.

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 a single sentence, extremely concise and to the point. Every word is necessary, and there is no verbosity or redundancy. It is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 that an output schema exists, the description could be more detailed about what the verification entails and how to interpret results. It lacks context on when to invoke this tool (e.g., before other analyses) and does not clarify the nature of the output. The minimal description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's role.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information, and it correctly provides no extraneous details. It does not detract from the schema coverage.

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 'Verify' and the resource 'tshark/capinfos installation and configuration'. It distinctly sets this tool apart from sibling tools that analyze packet captures, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies this is a prerequisite check for packet analysis tools, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or mention alternatives. Users must infer that it should be run before other pm_* tools.

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