agent-tool

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 discloses search methodology ('Searches environment variables, PATH, and known installation directories') and return format ('Returns paths and versions'), but omits safety traits (read-only status), idempotency, or error behavior.

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?

Three sentences efficiently structured: capabilities with examples, usage guidance, and implementation details. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy. Front-loaded with specific tool examples.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explicitly documents return values ('paths and versions') and search scope. For a single-parameter discovery tool, this provides sufficient context, though mentioning read-only safety would strengthen it given the lack of annotations.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description lists tool categories in the first sentence that map to the parameter's filter values, but does not add semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., explaining what the 'build' category encompasses).

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 ('Discovers') and resource ('development tools') and provides extensive examples (Go, .NET, Node.js, etc.) that clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like sysinfo (general system info) or bash (execution).

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('before running build commands') and why ('to avoid PATH issues'), providing clear operational context. However, it lacks explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance or named alternatives.

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