Check environment

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

Annotations already mark it readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: probes are 'client-only and non-blocking — no server/auth calls', which tells the agent it is cheap and safe to call speculatively. It doesn't detail latency or output shape, but the output schema covers the latter.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core capability and followed by the usage rationale and behavioral guarantee. Every sentence carries distinct information with no waste.

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, read-only probe with a full output schema, the description covers what is probed, why, and how invasive it is. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly implies no inputs 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?

States a concrete verb and resource: reports which CLIs are installed and their versions, plus kubectl context. This clearly separates it from probing siblings like kube_contexts or git_status, which return data for a specific tool rather than a capability inventory.

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 says to use it 'before calling' a CLI 'so you can pick the right tool', which gives a clear trigger point. It stops short of naming explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls just under the top score.

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