bluemouse

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's function (environment detection) and output format (JSON report), which adds value beyond the input schema. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, has side effects, requires authentication, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational 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?

The description is concise and well-structured, with two sentences: one stating the purpose and detection scope, and another specifying the return format. It's front-loaded with the main function and avoids unnecessary details. However, it could be slightly more efficient by combining ideas, but overall, it's appropriately sized with minimal 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?

Given the tool's complexity (environment detection with no inputs) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and output format, which is sufficient for a diagnostic tool. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or side effects, which could enhance completeness, but the output schema mitigates some of this gap.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since there are no parameters to describe. This meets the baseline of 4 for tools with zero parameters, as there's nothing to compensate for, and the description doesn't need to cover parameters.

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 tool's purpose: to check the Bluemouse runtime environment by detecting host environment, API key configuration, and dependency status. It specifies the verb '檢查' (check) and resource '藍圖小老鼠運行環境' (Bluemouse runtime environment), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_requirement_trap' or 'mmla_validate_code', which might also involve environment assessment.

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 usage context by mentioning what it detects (host environment, API keys, dependencies), suggesting it should be used for environment validation or troubleshooting. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'mmla_validate_code' for code validation or 'open_bluemouse_ui' for UI access), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The usage is inferred but not clearly defined.

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