check_dependencies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral aspects. It only says 'check if all required dependencies are installed' but does not disclose the return format (e.g., boolean, list of missing modules) or potential side effects. This lack of detail could hinder an agent's understanding of how to interpret the result.

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, 12-word sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No redundant or extraneous information is present.

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?

While the tool is simple with no parameters or output schema, the description omits any indication of the output format or how the agent should interpret the results. Given the absence of annotations, this is a moderate gap; however, the tool's simplicity partially mitigates the need for extensive detail.

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% (none needed). The description does not need to elaborate on parameters. With zero parameters, the baseline score is 4.

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 verb 'check' and identifies the resource as 'required dependencies', listing yt-dlp, ffmpeg, and whisper models. It is unambiguous and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that perform transcription or cleanup 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?

The description implies this tool should be used before transcription tasks to verify dependency availability. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to avoid using it or mention alternatives, but given its straightforward nature, the context is sufficient.

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