check_library_availability

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states 'Verify' which implies a read-only check, but also mentions 'imported/installed' without clarifying whether it performs installation or just checks availability. It does not disclose side effects, error behavior, or what happens when a library is missing. This is a significant gap for a tool that may have installation implications.

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 the primary purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and usage recommendation in the second. No superfluous words, concise and scannable, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's role.

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?

The tool has a simple one-parameter schema and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it leaves ambiguity about whether the tool only checks or also installs libraries, and what happens for unavailable libraries. Given the lack of annotations, this ambiguity affects completeness. While the usage workflow is clearly defined, the behavioral gap keeps it from being fully complete.

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 input schema already provides a complete description for the 'libraries' parameter, including a preference for using recommend_libraries output (100% schema coverage). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb 'Verify' and a resource 'specified Robot Framework libraries', clearly indicating the tool checks import/install availability. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, but the context of recommendation workflow helps distinguish it from 'recommend_libraries'. Overall, purpose is clear and actionable.

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 recommends this as step 3 after 'analyze_scenario' and 'recommend_libraries', and advises using recommended names to avoid unnecessary checks. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and implies the tool should be used after library recommendation, not before, effectively routing the agent to the correct workflow.

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