Get toolchains

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safe read-only profile is covered. The description adds useful content detail — that results are per language and include implicit include and link directories — but says nothing about behavior such as failure modes, missing-config handling, or scope beyond what is structured.

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 sentence that front-loads the core result and then lists the returned fields and extras. Nothing is redundant and every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return fields (path, id, version, target, implicit include/link dirs), which is exactly what an agent needs. Combined with 100% schema coverage for the single parameter, only a minor gap remains around usage conditions.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the buildDir parameter, its absolut/relative resolution rules, and the omission fallback are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning on top of that, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns compilers used per language, with the returned fields enumerated (path, id, version, target). It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_compile_commands or get_cache_variables, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 gives no indication of when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_compile_commands, which overlaps in the compiler/tooling space. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-routing guidance are provided; usage is only implied by the tool's subject matter.

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