kratos_check_installation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation by using 'Check' and 'report', and specifies what information is returned. However, it does not explicitly address side effects, error behavior, or system requirements beyond the basic check. This is adequate but minimal.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the main purpose ('Check that Kratos Multiphysics is available') and lists the key outputs. No unnecessary words are included, and it is immediately scannable.

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 tool with an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand its function. It covers what the tool checks and reports, and since there are no parameters or complex side effects, no additional detail is necessary. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be spelled out.

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 the baseline is 4. The description adds value by describing what the tool reports (version, paths, thread count, compiled applications), which clarifies the output semantics beyond the empty schema. It does not need to explain parameters because there are none.

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 names a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('Kratos Multiphysics'), and clearly lists what it reports (version, paths, thread count, compiled applications). This distinguishes it from siblings like kratos_list_applications by focusing on installation availability rather than just listing.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, follow-up actions, or why an agent would choose this over kratos_install or kratos_list_applications. The description only states what the tool does, not when to use it.

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