check_ash_availability

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It details what the tool verifies (ASH installation, scanner availability) and the return dictionary contents, making behavior transparent.

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 well-structured, opening with a clear purpose, then adding usage context and return details. It is slightly verbose in listing return items, but all sentences contribute value.

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 no parameters and an output schema, the description adequately covers installation status, scanner dependencies, and return items. It doesn't detail how availability is determined, but the output schema likely handles the return structure.

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 zero parameters, so the description correctly does not invent any parameter semantics. This aligns with the baseline for no-parameter tools.

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 checks if ASH is installed and available, with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling scanning tools by framing this as a preflight check, not a scan.

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 explicitly instructs users to 'Use this before attempting to scan with ASH,' providing a clear when-to-use context. It doesn't specify when not to use it or list alternatives, but the intended usage is unambiguous.

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