runtimes_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool is NON-MUTATING, which is a key safety property. It also explains what the tool reports (current vs latest, package manager, command), adding valuable behavioral context. It does not mention potential network latency or failure modes, but for a status-check tool, this is sufficient.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose and safety, the second details output, and the third covers the optional parameter. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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 (one optional parameter, no required inputs, and an output schema present), the description covers all essential aspects: what it checks, what it reports, how to restrict to a subset, and that it is non-mutating. The context from sibling tools (e.g., `update_runtimes`) is not strictly needed because the description is self-contained.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining the `languages` parameter as a comma-separated subset and providing a concrete example ('python3,node,rust'). This goes beyond the bare schema definition and gives the agent actionable guidance on how to format the parameter.

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 clearly states the resource: 'every language runtime for available updates.' It also explicitly introduces the NON-MUTATING qualifier, which distinguishes it from the sibling `update_runtimes` tool. The output details (current vs latest, package manager, exact command) further clarify the tool's purpose.

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: it checks for available updates without applying them, and mentions an optional subset of languages. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like `update_runtimes` or state 'use this to preview before updating.' The NON-MUTATING hint implies the distinction, but an explicit exclusion would make it a 5.

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