What changed on this PC?

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

The description explains behavioral traits beyond annotations: it writes a snapshot file, the first run creates a baseline, subsequent runs diff and roll forward, and the file location is given. Annotations only indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, so description adds valuable context.

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 very concise: four sentences front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains its functionality, including the snapshot mechanism and file location, making it complete for effective use.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters. According to guidelines, 0 parameters gives a baseline of 4, and no additional param information is needed.

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 compares current PC state to a previous run, listing specific changes such as disk space, programs installed/removed/updated, new startup items, and updates. It distinguishes itself as the only PCCheck tool that writes a snapshot, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 use cases: 'my PC got slower recently', 'what changed after that update', or periodic checkups. It also notes the first run saves a baseline and later runs diff against it. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool recommendations, though the context is sufficient.

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