detect_toolchains

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only inspection and lists what is probed, but says nothing about whether results include versions/paths, whether the scan is expensive, or what happens if a compiler is absent — the traits an agent needs to plan around.

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 compact sentence with the action and scope front-loaded and a parenthetical enumeration that adds real value. Every element earns its place and there is no filler.

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 zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is small but leaves the return shape undefined — it never says whether the agent gets versions, paths, or booleans. For a simple detection tool this is adequate but not fully self-contained.

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 there is no parameter surface to document and nothing for the description to compensate for. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter semantics are needed or missing.

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?

Clear specific verb ('Inspect') plus resource ('all installed compilers'), and it enumerates the exact toolchains checked (rustc, cargo, python, gcc, clang, node, go), so an agent knows precisely what is scanned. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the similarly-scoped sibling get_toolchain_status, which is the one ambiguity an agent would face.

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 statement of when to call this versus the sibling get_toolchain_status or parse_compiler_errors. The presence of a near-duplicate 'status' tool makes this omission more costly than usual, since the agent must guess which one reports presence versus health.

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