check_backends

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the tool's purpose (checking backend availability) and suggests it's a verification step, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or what 'available and configured' entails. The description adds basic context but lacks operational details.

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 highly concise and well-structured: two sentences that front-load the purpose and follow with clear usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, which is sufficient for a no-parameter verification tool. However, it could be more complete by hinting at what the output contains (e.g., list of backends, status) despite the output schema existing.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, so it appropriately focuses on tool purpose and usage. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't attempt to explain nonexistent parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('check which transcription backends are available and configured') and distinguishes it from siblings like transcribe_audio or list_models by focusing on backend availability verification rather than transcription or model listing.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Call this first to verify your setup before transcribing.' This clearly indicates when to use this tool (as an initial setup check) versus when to use sibling tools like transcribe_audio (for actual transcription).

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