Check specialist availability

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the valuable nuance about not verifying authentication, which is not evident from annotations or schema. However, it doesn't disclose the return format or what a failure looks like, though with zero params and a simple check, this is reasonably adequate.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. First sentence states the core purpose; second sentence names a critical limitation. Every element earns its place and the information is front-loaded.

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, simple status check with complete annotations and 100% schema coverage, the description is essentially complete. It names the tools checked, clarifies what it doesn't verify, and fits naturally with sibling delegate tools. The only minor gap is not describing the output format, but that's a modest concern given no output schema is provided.

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 there is nothing for the description to explain. Per the rubric, 0 params = baseline 4, and the description earns a 5 by explicitly naming the three CLIs checked and adding context about what is NOT covered (authentication), providing more than the schema could.

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?

Description clearly states 'Check whether the configured Codex, Kimi, and Grok CLIs are available' with a specific verb (Check) and resource (CLI availability). It goes beyond a bare statement by explicitly naming the three CLIs, which distinguishes it from the sibling delegate tools that perform delegation actions rather than status checks.

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 clarifies it does NOT verify account authentication, which is a useful exclusion that tells the agent when this tool is not sufficient. It implies this is a pre-flight check before delegating work, given the sibling tools are delegate_backend/delegate_frontend. A clear when-not is provided via the authentication disclaimer.

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