Check the installation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description goes further: it lists exactly what gets inspected, states that each check returns pass/warn/fail along with a fix, and adds the non-obvious side-effect guarantee 'Starts no browser.' That is meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured hints.

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?

Front-loaded with the safety mode ('Read-only'), then the check inventory, then the invocation trigger. Every clause carries information — component names, result vocabulary, and the no-browser guarantee — with no filler sentences.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema and a straightforward read-only diagnostic, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is checked, what the results mean (pass/warn/fail plus a fix), that no browser launches, and when to reach for it. No output schema is needed given the result vocabulary is described.

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 takes zero parameters, so there are no values for the description to explain; the schema is empty and 100% covered by definition. Baseline 4 applies — nothing about parameter meaning is missing because there are no parameters.

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 gives a specific verb (checks) plus an enumerated resource list — Node.js, node:sqlite, the Ritoko home, the journal, playwright-core, RITOKO_BROWSER, the Chrome executable. That specificity clearly separates it from siblings like browser_open, run_start or step_repair, which operate on runs rather than on the installation itself.

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?

It states concrete triggers: use it when Ritoko cannot start a run or open Chrome, or when the user asks to check the setup, and it delimits scope with 'Starts no browser.' There is no explicit when-not or named alternative diagnostic tool, so it falls 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.