Detect Tekton

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation ('Detect' and 'report'), but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or safe. Additionally, it does not specify behavior when Tekton is not installed (e.g., returns error or empty counts). The description provides basic transparency but lacks detail on side-effects or error cases.

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 extremely concise: one sentence of 10 words that clearly communicates the action and output. Every word is necessary and front-loaded. No fluff or redundancy.

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 simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It states what the tool does (detect and report counts) and implies a read-only nature. However, it could benefit from additional context such as the format of the report (e.g., 'returns JSON with boolean and counts') or a hint that it is safe to use as a prerequisite. Given the simplicity, it is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). According to the rubric, when coverage is high, the baseline is 3 even without parameter info in the description. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable given the absence of parameters.

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: 'Detect whether Tekton is installed and report pipeline/task/run counts.' It uses a specific verb ('Detect') and resource ('Tekton'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tekton_list_pipelines by focusing on installation detection and counting rather than listing.

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 usage for checking Tekton installation and obtaining summary counts, which is clear. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, such as using tekton_list_pipelines for detailed listings. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer usage.

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