Check whether an Astryx design-system contract is available in a project—CLI and core installed, with version—before fetching it, and report absence gracefully.
Check whether the Astryx design-system contract is available in a project (CLI + core installed, version). Use this before fetch_astryx_contract. Degrades gracefully when Astryx is absent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectRoot | Yes | Absolute path to the project root |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does useful work: it discloses that the check reports CLI/core installation and version, and that it "degrades gracefully when Astryx is absent" rather than erroring. It does not state that it is read-only or whether it touches the filesystem/network, leaving a small gap for a probe tool.
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 sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with the purpose before the usage rule and the degradation caveat. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should ideally characterize the return value; it partially does by naming what is checked (CLI + core installed, version) but does not specify the response shape (boolean vs. object). For a one-parameter probe tool, 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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single projectRoot parameter is fully documented as an absolute path, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax, path-format, or default information beyond it, making the baseline 3 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?
States a specific verb (check availability) and resource (Astryx design-system contract), plus the precise criteria it verifies: CLI + core installed, version. This clearly separates it from fetch_astryx_contract, which retrieves the contract rather than probing for it.
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?
"Use this before fetch_astryx_contract" gives an explicit sequencing rule tied to a named sibling, which is strong routing guidance. It stops short of stating when not to call it (e.g., if the contract is already known to be present), so it is clear context without exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.