raskadr_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden, and it satisfies the key concern by explicitly stating 'This tool never writes files.' It also frames the operation as a read-only check, though it does not describe output or error behavior.

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 short sentences deliver the purpose and the key safety trait with no filler. The main action is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 diagnostic tool with existing sibling names, the definition states the target resource and the no-write guarantee. It leaves the exact return shape unspecified, but 'Check whether' sufficiently implies a boolean or status result for this simple case.

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 and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter semantics are needed.

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 ('Check') and resource ('local CapCut draft store'), and the safety guarantee distinguishes it from sibling tools that list, inspect, plan, or check compatibility. An agent can tell this is a diagnostic health check rather than a project operation.

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 phrasing implies this should be used to verify Raskadr can locate the draft store before other workflows, and 'never writes files' suggests it is safe to run. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving usage comparison to inference.

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