check_devpipe

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 behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks installation status and retrieves version info, but doesn't describe how it performs the check (e.g., local command execution, API call), what happens if devpipe is not installed (e.g., returns error or null), or any side effects like network calls or permissions needed. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with external systems.

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 a single, efficient sentence: 'Check if devpipe is installed and get version information.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for a simple diagnostic tool. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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?

Given the tool's likely complexity (checking external installation and versioning) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., version string, boolean status, error messages), how it handles failures, or any dependencies. For a tool that interacts with an external component like devpipe, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). With no parameters, the description doesn't need to add semantic details beyond what the schema provides. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description adequately covers the tool's intent without parameter-related gaps.

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: 'Check if devpipe is installed and get version information.' It specifies the verb ('check') and resource ('devpipe') with the additional action of retrieving version information. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'validate_config' or 'run_pipeline' that might also interact with devpipe in different ways.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether devpipe needs to be accessible), exclusions, or suggest sibling tools for related tasks like 'run_pipeline' for execution or 'validate_config' for configuration checks. Usage is implied only by the purpose statement.

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