Check Global Toolchain

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description explains that it compares installed versions against latest and shows update commands, which is useful behavioral context. This adds meaningful information about the tool's output without contradicting any annotations.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized: a clear purpose statement, a useful list of supported tools, a concise summary of output, and practical examples. Every sentence adds value and the most essential information appears first.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the user will see (installed vs latest, update commands). It also provides usage examples, making the tool's behavior sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it.

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 'category' is fully described in the schema with clear allowed values, and the schema description coverage is 100%. The main description does not add extra meaning about parameter usage, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 versions') and a clear resource ('globally installed tools'), listing the exact tools covered. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like depsonar_check or depsonar_runtimes by scoping to global toolchain versions.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool through natural language examples like 'Check my global tools' and 'Is pnpm up to date?'. However, it does not explicitly exclude situations or point to alternative tools, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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