Get Msty installation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Read-only' sentence is largely redundant. It does add value by disclosing the returned field set and establishing a call-ordering prerequisite, but says nothing about behavior when Studio is absent beyond an 'installed' flag.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the ordering rule, then the return shape – no filler. The 'Read-only' sentence duplicates the annotations and could be dropped, which keeps it off a perfect score.

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 no-arg, read-only lookup with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything needed to select and call it correctly: purpose, ordering, and returned fields. The only minor omission is how it behaves when Studio is not installed, though the 'installed' field implies a graceful result rather than an error.

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?

Zero-parameter tool, so there are no argument semantics to explain; the baseline of 4 applies. The schema's empty properties object is consistent with the description's implication that the tool takes no input.

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?

Specific verb ('Locate') plus an enumerated resource set (app, version, database path, service ports) makes the tool's output scope unambiguous. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_status, get_hardware_profile or list_workspaces, which cover different surfaces.

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?

Explicitly states when to call it: 'before other Studio tools when you need paths or to confirm Studio is installed' – a real prerequisite/ordering rule that agents would otherwise miss. It does not name a negative case or a specific alternative, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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