Project Check Toolchain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the tool 'never raises,' which is a key safety trait for a diagnostic tool. It also implies a boolean-like result ('installed and usable') but doesn't specify the exact return structure. Given the tool's simplicity and the existence of an output schema (which isn't shown but is present), this is sufficient. It could add more detail about what 'usable' means or whether it performs any network/file checks, but the core behavior is disclosed.

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 two sentences with zero fluff. The first sentence states the purpose, the second gives usage guidance and a safety note. All information is front-loaded and every word earns its place. It's a model of conciseness.

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 diagnostic tool, this description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, when to use it, and a key behavioral guarantee (never raises). The output schema presumably describes the return value, so the description doesn't need to. It's fully sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to call it.

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 doesn't need to explain any. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no redundant parameter information. It's correctly minimal—no parameter documentation is 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to report whether the goboscript toolchain is installed and usable. It uses a specific verb ('Report') and a specific resource ('goboscript toolchain'), and it's distinct from all sibling tools—no other tool performs a toolchain health check. This makes its purpose unambiguous.

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 tells the agent when to call this tool: 'Call this first if any other project_* tool complains about a missing binary.' It also notes that it's safe for diagnosis because it 'never raises.' This provides clear context for selection and even a conditional trigger, which is excellent guidance.

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