upscaling_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of signaling behavior. 'Detect whether... available' clearly conveys a read-only status check with no mutation or side effects. It does not detail how detection is performed, but for a zero-parameter probe this is acceptable.

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?

A single, focused sentence conveys the entire purpose with no filler. Essential information is front-loaded: it detects availability of an optional dependency.

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 tool with an output schema, the description is complete. An agent can confidently invoke it without further clarification, and the mention of 'optional' provides enough context about why this check matters.

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 no parameters and the schema already documents this fully (100% coverage). The description correctly avoids inventing parameter details, and the zero-parameter baseline of 4 applies.

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 states a clear action ('Detect'), a specific resource ('optional opm-upscaling binaries'), and the exact question being answered ('are available'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_upscaling, which executes upscaling rather than checking its prerequisites.

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 when to use this tool: before running upscaling, to verify the optional binaries exist. However, it does not explicitly state this or mention any alternative tools, so the usage context is left mostly to inference.

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