check_before_install

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the tool performs a probe and checks, but does not specify if it is read-only, has side effects, requires authentication, or any rate limits. The description is insufficient for a pre-install check that likely queries external resources.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the key outputs. Every word adds value, 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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters (all described in schema) and no output schema, the description provides a high-level summary of what it does. However, it lacks details on the return format or behavior in edge cases (e.g., server not reachable). It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear descriptions for each parameter. The description adds context by explaining the purpose of the tool, which helps understand the parameters' roles. However, it does not detail how the parameters are used (e.g., how server_url is probed).

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 clearly states it performs a pre-install report covering health probe, security flags, token cost estimation, and duplicate checking. The verb 'check' and specific outputs (health, security, cost, duplicates) make the purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'health_check' or 'find_duplicates', which might overlap.

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 implies this tool is used before installation to gather information, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'health_check' or 'find_duplicates'. There is no guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it.

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