runtime_check

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true and openWorldHint: false, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it lists returned fields (ok, assetRoot, missing) and explains the source-checkout false-negative scenario. It does not describe side effects, but the read-only annotation and local scope make that less necessary.

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 front-loaded with the read-only nature and purpose, then adds return semantics, the source-checkout caveat, and parameter behavior in only a few sentences. Every sentence contributes directly to correct invocation or interpretation.

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 read-only runtime-asset check with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers what is checked, what is returned, the key source-checkout caveat, and how projectPath affects scope. Nothing essential for correct use is missing.

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%, so the single projectPath parameter is already documented as an absolute path. The description adds useful semantic detail: projectPath is optional and causes a project-local node_modules install to be checked as well.

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 action and resource: checking that the installed Flisk CLI has bundled runtime assets such as engine and templates. It is clear what the tool inspects, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from diagnostic siblings like doctor or status.

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?

It provides clear context for use: checking packaged runtime assets, with a useful caveat that source checkouts will report ok: false because assets exist only in packaged installs. However, it does not name alternatives such as doctor or status when broader diagnostics are needed.

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