Check analysis tools

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuine context by naming the concrete dependencies (FFmpeg, FFprobe) that gate the analysis tools. However, with no output schema it does not say what the reported result looks like (a single boolean versus per-binary status).

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; the dependency information is packed into a relative clause rather than spread across redundant sentences.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema availability probe, this covers the essentials: what is checked and why it matters. The only gap is the shape of the returned result, which an agent would want in order to branch on a negative answer.

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 the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate at the input level. It correctly implies no arguments are needed.

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 ("Reports whether ... are available") with a specific resource (FFmpeg and FFprobe) and explains their role as dependencies of the analysis tools. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling check_connection, so an agent must infer that this checks binary dependencies rather than a service connection.

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 phrase "which the analysis tools use" implies this is a preflight check to run before analysis operations, but the description never states when to call it, that it should be called before the detect_*/audio_levels family, or what to do if the result is negative. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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