smart_explore_cli_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It goes beyond the name by specifying that the check verifies 'installed and runnable' and by explicitly labeling the tool as 'only a health check', signaling a non-destructive read-only operation. It does not detail output format or failure behavior, but for a zero-parameter status probe this is adequate.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the exact action and then adds a single useful usage/context sentence, earning every word.

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?

For a simple zero-input, zero-output-schema health check, the description is nearly complete: it states the exact condition checked and the scope of the tool. The only missing piece is the precise response representation, but 'Check whether' strongly implies a boolean/status result, which is sufficient for an agent to proceed.

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 accepts 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain any parameters, and it correctly avoids introducing nonexistent ones.

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 starts with 'Check whether the bundled smart-explore CLI is installed and runnable', which is a specific verb and resource. It also clarifies scope with 'this is only a health check', distinguishing it from actual code exploration, so an agent can easily understand its role.

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 explicitly gives usage direction: 'Use the CLI for all code exploration; this is only a health check.' This tells the agent when to invoke this tool versus the alternative of using the CLI for exploration, leaving no ambiguity.

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