check_dependencies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it clearly describes what the tool does (checks installation status), it doesn't reveal important behavioral aspects: what format the results take (boolean, list, detailed status), whether it performs actual execution tests or just path checks, what happens if dependencies are missing (error vs warning), or system requirements for running the check itself.

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, efficient sentence that contains no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes all necessary specificity about which dependencies are checked. Every element serves a clear purpose in helping an agent understand when to invoke this tool.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool does. However, it lacks details about the return format or behavioral characteristics that would help an agent understand how to interpret results. For a diagnostic tool, knowing what kind of output to expect is important for proper integration into workflows.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and it correctly focuses on the tool's purpose rather than attempting to document non-existent inputs.

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 specific action ('Check if all required dependencies are installed') and identifies the exact resources involved (yt-dlp, whisper, ffmpeg). It precisely distinguishes this tool from its siblings (list_supported_sites, list_transcripts, transcribe_video) by focusing on system dependency verification rather than content 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 strongly implies this tool should be used to verify system prerequisites before attempting operations that require those dependencies (like transcribing videos). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools for different scenarios, though the sibling tools suggest clear context boundaries.

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