Locate FamiStudio

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what information is gathered (probed paths, available commands, allowed directories) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond that.

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?

Two tight sentences cover the full purpose: the first reports executable findings, the second lists server capabilities. There is no repetition, filler, or unnecessary wording.

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 parameters and a straightforward read-only purpose, the description is fully complete. It enumerates every category of output the agent should expect: executable status, version, probed paths, CLI export commands, and allowed directories.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds no parameter semantics, but the baseline of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 names a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('FamiStudio executable'), then enumerates the exact items covered: found status, version, probed paths, available CLI export commands, and allowed read/write directories. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_famistudio or export_audio, which perform actions rather than report environment state.

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 this is an environment-discovery tool: it reports executable presence, version, probed paths, export commands, and allowed directories. However, it never explicitly states when to use it or when to prefer alternatives, and it does not name any sibling tools or exclusion conditions.

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