check_raspa2_environment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains exactly what is checked, states that a diagnostic report is returned, and mentions the remediation command for the failure case. It does not explicitly state it performs no modifications, but 'check' and the listed verifications imply a read-only operation.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose. The numbered list of checks is compact and easy to scan, and every sentence adds useful information with 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?

For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool, the description is complete. It explains what will be checked, what the output is (a full diagnostic report), and what action to take when the environment is not ready. No output schema exists, but the return type is clearly expressible as a diagnostic report.

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 has zero parameters, so the input schema already provides complete parameter information. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description correctly spends no space on parameter details.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether RASPA2 is correctly installed and configured on this server.' It then lists the precise verification points (binary on PATH, environment variable, force field/molecule files), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling simulation and parsing tools.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose and includes an actionable next step if the check fails ('run: raspa-mcp-setup'). It does not explicitly list when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the context of checking the environment before simulations is strongly implied.

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