latexmk_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It conveys a read-only, non-mutating action via 'Check', but it does not disclose the return format, how it indicates absence of latexmk, or any potential side effects. For a simple check tool this is acceptable but not fully transparent.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Check', and contains no unnecessary words 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?

The tool is simple: one optional parameter, no output schema, and a straightforward purpose. The description is adequate for an agent to understand what to call and why, though it could benefit from stating the expected output type. Given the low complexity, this is nearly 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's single parameter 'working_dir' is fully described as optional and not required for this check, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds a subtle point about checking 'on this system', implying system-wide scope, but this is not a significant addition beyond the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Check' and clearly identifies the resources: 'latexmk is installed' and 'which TeX engines are available'. This unambiguously distinguishes it from the sibling compile, watch, and config tools, which have different actions.

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 clear usage: verify the TeX environment before compilation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, though the sibling list shows no other check tool, making the context clear.

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