get_xcos_runtime

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It is implicitly a read-only environment probe, but it does not disclose failure behavior (e.g., what is reported if no Scilab/Xcos install is found) or any side effects, leaving some behavioral gaps for a diagnostic 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, listing exactly the three things reported. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return fields, and its high-level enumeration (CLI, GUI, version) plus zero params makes it nearly self-sufficient. Minor gap: no mention of environment-prerequisite context.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to explain and the baseline is 4. The description appropriately does not invent parameter discussion.

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 (Report) and concrete resources (Scilab CLI, Xcos-capable GUI, exact version), which makes the tool's output clear. It is naturally distinct from the block/model/simulation siblings, but the description never explicitly positions itself against them.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus the siblings (e.g., as a prerequisite check before simulate_xcos_model). The word 'discovered' faintly implies environment probing, but no condition, trigger, or alternative is stated.

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