Detect Hermes installation

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully declared. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by explicitly confirming 'without mutation or live API/model calls' — reassuring the agent this is purely local and side-effect-free. This reinforces and extends, rather than merely repeating, the annotation data.

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 sentence carrying high information density — it names the surfaces scanned and the safety guarantees. Zero filler words, no repetition of the title. Front-loaded with the action verb 'Detect'. Every phrase 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is handled externally. For a read-only detection tool with simple optional parameters, the description captures the full scope (all surfaces, no mutation, no live calls) without needing to enumerate details. Slightly under-complete only because it doesn't hint at what the return format distinguishes (e.g., found vs not-found, error behavior).

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides. However, the description's list of surfaces (CLI/home/profile/config/toolkit) implicitly maps to the home, profile, and toolkit_root params, giving mild additional context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Detect') with a clear resource scope ('local Hermes CLI/home/profile/config/toolkit surfaces'). It explicitly enumerates what is covered, distinguishing this from siblings like hermes_status_overview and hermes_config_summary. The parenthetical clarifies it's about local surfaces, not remote/API state.

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 conveys when to use it: for detecting local installation surfaces. The 'without mutation or live API/model calls' phrasing implies this is a safe reconnaissance tool appropriate when exploring the local environment. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use hermes_status_overview for runtime status'), but the scope is clear enough that an agent can differentiate it from the many API siblings.

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