SCAPS installation status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that it reports the installation in use, how it was discovered, other installations, the run folder, and jobs, which tells the agent what diagnostic information to expect.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The list of reported items is slightly run-on and the phrase 'how it was found' could be tightened, but it remains appropriately sized for a status tool.

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 an output schema present, rich read-only annotations, and zero parameters, the description is nearly complete for the tool's complexity. It identifies the report contents but does not clarify the discovery-method concept or the relationship to scaps_jobs, leaving a minor contextual gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. With no inputs, the baseline is 4; the description appropriately does not waste space on 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?

States a specific verb (Report) and resource (SCAPS installation status), and enumerates what is included: installation in use, discovery method, other installations, run folder, and jobs. It clearly distinguishes itself as the diagnostic/status tool among the scaps_* siblings, though the phrasing 'how it was found' is slightly ambiguous.

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 implies a diagnostic/status use case but gives no explicit guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as scaps_jobs or scaps_results, even though it mentions jobs. The intended usage is inferable from the title and report contents, but not spelled out.

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