retrace_probe

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scope of inspection and, by describing the operation as "diagnose", implies a non-mutating read, but it never explicitly states that nothing is modified, that results are cached (only hinted at via the refresh parameter's schema), or whether the probe can be slow because it shells out to external analyzers.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and purpose, followed by the enumeration of checks and the call-to-action. The parenthetical analyzer list is long but each entry conveys real information about what availability is reported.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description does the necessary work of enumerating the fields the diagnostic returns, so an agent knows what to expect back. Minor gaps remain: the cache behavior and the read-only nature are left implicit rather than stated.

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 100% and the single optional parameter (refresh) is documented in the schema as bypassing the adapter cache. The description adds no meaning about the cache or when a refresh is warranted, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Uses a specific verb ("Diagnose") and resource ("the Retrace installation") and enumerates exactly what is checked: Node version, workspace roots, write policy, external analyzer availability, and registered tool count. It is not differentiated from close siblings such as toolchain_probe or retrace_limits, which an agent could plausibly confuse with this environment probe.

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?

"Run this first in any session" gives a clear, actionable trigger for invocation. It stops short of naming exclusions or stating when a narrower sibling (e.g. toolchain_probe for analyzer availability alone) should be preferred instead.

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