Diagnose Runtime

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It adds that 'native probes are explicit and temporary,' which hints at non-persistent side effects, but it doesn't explain what this means in practice (e.g., whether probes spawn processes, if they are safe, or the nature of the report). Most behavioral details are absent.

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 extremely brief, comprising a single sentence. While there is no fluff, it is under-specified and fails to provide essential information about the probes or the report format. It is concise but not appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

This is a diagnostic tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description does not explain what the probes do, what the report contains, or how the results should be interpreted. It is severely incomplete for an agent to call it correctly and use its results.

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 by explaining the meanings of run_native_probe, run_office_probe, and run_chemscript_probe. It does not mention any parameters or their effects, leaving the agent without any clue what these booleans control.

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 states the tool reports local runtime capabilities, which is a clear verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like get_toolkit_capabilities by focusing on runtime rather than toolkit capabilities. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the three probe types (native, office, chemscript) that the parameters suggest, so specificity is slightly lacking.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no preconditions, and no context such as using it to check runtime before running other tools. It only states its purpose, leaving the agent to infer when to call it.

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