Diagnose environment

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond annotations: it lists what is reported (paths, versions, actionable hints) and documents environment-variable overrides for tool locations.

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 front-loaded and appropriately short for a zero-parameter diagnostic tool. The phrase 'Read-only: modifies nothing' largely repeats the readOnlyHint annotation, which is minor redundancy but not disruptive.

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's low complexity, zero parameters, and an existing output schema, the description is complete enough. It identifies the dependencies checked, what information is returned, and the environment-variable overrides, while the output schema can handle the return structure.

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 baseline is 4. The description adds useful configuration semantics by documenting the KDENLIVE_MCP_KDENLIVE, KDENLIVE_MCP_MELT, KDENLIVE_MCP_FFPROBE, and KDENLIVE_MCP_FFMPEG environment variables that can override tool locations.

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, 'Report,' and names the exact dependencies checked: Kdenlive, MLT (melt), ffprobe, and ffmpeg. It clearly distinguishes this environment-diagnostic tool from sibling tools such as inspect_project, probe_media, and render_project.

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 makes the diagnostic context clear by stating that it reports whether dependencies are installed and usable, with actionable hints. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over sibling tools or mention troubleshooting workflows such as before rendering, but the usage context is still clear from the purpose.

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