openems_check_installation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'check' implies a non-destructive read-only operation, the description does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, status message), whether it executes an external command, or what 'available' precisely means. This leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's behavior and output.

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 concise sentence that states the core purpose without any redundancy or extraneous information. It is perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but omits crucial context about what the agent should expect when the check runs. Without knowing the return value or how to interpret the result, the description is not fully complete for guiding the agent's next actions.

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 there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description does not need to compensate for schema gaps, and no additional parameter information is required.

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 uses a specific verb 'Check' and identifies the resource 'OpenEMS' with a clear purpose 'available for running simulations'. It distinctly differs from sibling tools that involve creating, listing, or exporting designs, making its role 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 phrase 'available for running simulations' implies this should be used before running simulations, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. Usage is understood from context rather than stated directly.

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