Check DVERA environment

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true is present, and the description does not contradict it. The description adds context about what the tool reports (usability and missing components), which is useful beyond the annotation. However, it does not detail the format of the report (e.g., whether it returns a list of missing items, a boolean, or a message). Since annotations only cover the read-only nature, a 3 is appropriate – it adds some behavioral context but not exhaustive detail.

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 concise, two sentences, and front-loads the core purpose. The first sentence states the report action and what it covers, the second provides usage guidance. No wasted words. A small deduction because it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for missing items), but it is efficient.

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 the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema, no siblings), the description covers the essential information: what it does, when to use it, and prerequisites. It could delve into the output format, but given the lack of an output schema, a brief note on what 'report' entails would enhance completeness. Nevertheless, it is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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, and the schema reflects that. The description reinforces that it 'takes no arguments,' which adds explicit clarity beyond the empty schema. Even though schema coverage is 100% (trivially), the description's explicit statement makes this a good example; a baseline of 4 is justified for no-param tools as per guidelines.

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: to report on the usability of a local CT installation for DVERA, including what is missing. It uses specific verbs ('Report', 'check') and names the resource ('local CT installation', 'DVERA'). It also distinguishes itself by noting it is the tool to run when verification tools are absent, which helps with sibling differentiation (though no siblings are listed).

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'the tool to run when the verification tools are absent from the list.' It also clarifies that it takes no arguments and needs no CT install, setting clear usage context. There is no direct mention of alternatives, but given the absence of siblings, this is adequate.

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