What this machine can do

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces this by saying the tool 'Reports' rather than mutates, and notes it can be safely called before a test run. It adds useful context about what the report contains without contradicting any annotation.

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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the list of reported items, and the second gives concrete trigger conditions. Every clause contributes to deciding when and why to invoke this tool.

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 and an output schema present, the description fully covers what the tool reports and when to call it. An agent has enough information to invoke it appropriately and interpret the result using the output schema.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden on the description. The baseline of 4 applies because the description correctly assumes no inputs are needed.

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 the specific verb 'Reports' and enumerates concrete resources: workspace roots, read-only status, optional layers, and Windows Office applications. This clearly separates it from sibling operation tools like xlide_run_macro or xlide_analyze, which perform actions rather than report capabilities.

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 gives explicit trigger conditions: 'Call it when a tool reports something missing, or before promising the user a test run.' It does not specify exclusions or alternatives, but no sibling tool appears to fill this diagnostic role, so the context is clear enough.

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