studio_info

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe, non-mutating probe, so the description only needs to add context. It adds the concrete checklist of what is inspected, but says nothing about how results are reported (pass/fail, error vs. boolean) or what happens when a component is missing, which matters for a diagnostic tool with no output schema.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and then the concrete checks. Every clause earns its place by naming a distinct component being verified; there is no filler.

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 zero parameters, a readOnly annotation, and no output schema, the description carries the main burden of explaining scope, and it does so by enumerating the checks. What is missing is the outcome semantics (what a failing check looks like), which is a modest but real gap for a health-check tool.

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 for the description to disambiguate; baseline for a no-param tool is 4. The listed checks help the agent understand what the parameterless call will cover.

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?

States a specific verb ('check') and a concrete set of resources it inspects (studio folder, Chrome, ffmpeg, ElevenLabs key, engines, series formats), so an agent knows this is a setup/environment diagnostic. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings that overlap on the same subject matter (list_formats, get_engine_guide), which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'Check the setup' suggests a preflight call before other operations, but the description never states when to call it, when not to, or that list_formats/get_engine_guide should be preferred for the format/engine portion. No exclusions or ordering guidance is given.

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