check_command_code

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It states the tool performs a check, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify what constitutes 'available' (e.g., PATH lookup), the return format, or behavior when the command is missing. This is basic but not misleading.

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 a single, well-formed sentence. Every word contributes meaning; there is no redundancy, fluff, or unnecessary detail.

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 one-parameter tool, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not mention the return value or exit code behavior (e.g., boolean true vs. non-zero exit), nor how availability is determined. Given no output schema, a bit more detail would improve completeness, but the tool's simplicity lowers the demand.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with 'The command to check' for the single parameter. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond reinforcing that the parameter is the command whose availability is being checked. Baseline 3 applies due to full schema coverage.

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 'Check if a command is available on the system' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like execute_shell_command_code that actually run commands. The scope is explicit and unambiguous.

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 usage is implied: use this to verify command availability before execution. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., running 'which' via a shell command), nor any when-not-to-use conditions.

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