check_binary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It implies a read-only check but doesn't explicitly state that, and it omits details about return format or behavior when the binary is missing. However, the verb 'check' and the phrase 'where it is' convey a basic non-destructive nature, earning a middle score.

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 two short sentences: the first states the purpose, the second explains the parameter with examples. It is front-loaded, free of filler, and perfectly concise.

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 single-parameter utility with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter. It doesn't explicitly explain return values or error behavior, but 'where it is' hints at the output. It's adequate for a simple tool, though a bit more detail would make it fully complete.

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 schema only defines 'name' as a string, but the description adds meaning by explaining it is the binary name and provides examples ('nmap', 'sshpass', 'msfconsole'). This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and clarifies the expected input format.

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's function with a specific verb ('check'), resource ('binary'), and outcome ('installed and where it is'). It provides concrete binary name examples, making the purpose unmistakable and distinguishing it from the many scanning/exploit tools in the sibling list.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or typical use cases. The description implies you use it to verify binary presence, but it doesn't state scenarios like 'before running a tool that depends on this binary' or exclusions.

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