popcorn_backends

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses read-only behavior through 'List' and 'Shows,' and the phrase 'installed and ready to use' indicates it checks availability. This is adequate for a simple listing tool, although it doesn't detail return format or potential caveats like configuration requirements.

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 exactly two sentences: the first states the core action, the second explains what it shows and offers a use case. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, behavioral transparency, and usage context, making it sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 defines zero parameters, so there is nothing to add. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description correctly does not mention parameters that do not exist.

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 'List available transcription backends on this system' with a specific verb and resource. It further specifies the output ('Shows which backends are installed and ready to use'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like suggest, presets, analyze, and read, which have different purposes.

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 clear usage context with 'Use this to help users choose the best transcription option,' indicating when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks direct exclusions.

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