Check Setup

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: it explains the `problems` output tells what is missing and how to fix it, framing this as diagnosis rather than repair. It doesn't mention cost or runtime of the checks, but that's minor.

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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing: the first scopes the checks, the second states the trigger. The trigger guidance is placed last where it's easy to find, and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't spell out return values, and it still flags the key `problems` field. For a read-only, zero-parameter diagnostic, everything an agent needs to decide to call it is present.

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 is nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly requires no input to invoke it.

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 names a specific action (check the setup) and enumerates exactly what is inspected: ffmpeg/ffprobe versions, optional filters, capture devices, Windows OCR, settings, and enabled toolsets. None of the siblings do diagnostics, so an agent can distinguish this from the recording/editing tools without opening the schema.

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 gives two explicit trigger conditions — 'Call on first use' and 'when a tool reports a missing feature' — which is precisely the when-to-use guidance an agent needs for a diagnostic tool. The alternative (remediation tools) is implicitly excluded because this only reports problems.

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