toolchain_probe

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether probing executes external binaries, how slow it is, whether results are cached, or whether the call is side-effect free; the presence of a "refresh" parameter strongly hints at caching that the description never mentions.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is compact, though the phrase "optional N64 reversing and PS2 development tools" is slightly dense and could have been clarified with one more short clause without bloat.

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 annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description needs to do more work. It never describes the shape of the report (a list of stage names? booleans per tool?) or what "optional" and "actually available" mean concretely, leaving the agent unable to interpret the result.

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% and the description explains none of the three parameters. The two enum parameters (sourcePlatform, targetPlatform) are partly self-documenting via their n64/ps2 values, but "refresh" is completely opaque and its caching semantics are never clarified in prose.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Probe") with a specific resource ("optional N64 reversing and PS2 development tools") and states the result ("which automated stages are actually available"). That is enough to distinguish it from most siblings, though it never names the closest-looking alternative, retrace_probe, so an agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of when NOT to call it. The phrase "automated stages are actually available" implies it should be called before running pipeline stages such as build_ps2 or analyze_n64_rom, but that routing is left entirely to inference.

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