runtimes_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, and it does so well: it states NETWORK: yes, clarifies that non-mutating applies to this machine's runtimes rather than network traffic, and warns that `tier` is orthogonal to update availability. It could add failure or latency behavior, but the core side-effect and network profile is clearly disclosed.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and safety label, then adds only necessary detail about output fields, the parameter format, tier semantics, and the network caveat. Every paragraph earns its place; the non-mutating clarification prevents a likely misinterpretation.

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?

The description is complete for a one-parameter status tool with no output schema: it explains what the report contains, how to narrow it, the meaning of tier, and the network behavior. The pointer to list_languages for tier definitions closes the remaining semantic gap.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: `languages` is defined as optional, comma-separated, and illustrated with 'python3,node,rust'. It does not enumerate valid language names, but the example and context make the parameter usable.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check every language runtime for available updates' and emphasizes '(NON-MUTATING)', which clearly separates status checking from update/install actions. It names concrete outputs — current vs latest, package manager, command — and the NON-MUTATING label distinguishes it from update_runtimes without requiring schema inspection.

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 tells the agent how to scope the call with 'Optional `languages` = comma-separated subset' and gives a concrete example. The NON-MUTATING label and 'exact command that would run' imply this is the dry-run/status counterpart to update_runtimes, but it never explicitly names that alternative or states a when-not-to-use condition.

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