system_check

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

The description discloses that the tool auto-detects GPU and checks specific system resources, hinting at behavior beyond a simple check. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions needed, or output behavior, and there are no annotations to supplement. Transparency is moderate.

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 formatted as a colon-separated list of key items. It is concise, front-loads the purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every part earns its place.

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?

The description does not indicate what the tool returns (no output schema) or how results are presented. For a check tool, the agent likely needs to know the format (e.g., JSON report) or success/failure indicators. Without this, completeness is lacking.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema coverage is 100% but conveys nothing. The description adds essential meaning by explaining the tool's purpose and the aspects of the environment it checks. Baseline is 4 for no parameters, and the description fully compensates for the schema's emptiness.

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 the tool checks the execution environment, listing specific components (CPU/RAM/GPU, ffmpeg, speaker separation model, ASR engines, Whisper plan). This provides a specific verb-resource pairing and distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are all higher-level project operations.

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. The description only lists what is checked, without mentioning prerequisites, typical usage scenarios, or exclusions (e.g., when to use other diagnostic tools).

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