check_openscad

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'returns version info' and includes an optional parameter for paths, but doesn't describe error handling (e.g., what happens if OpenSCAD isn't installed), logging behavior (the 'ctx' parameter is mentioned but not explained), or any side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with external software.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence clearly states the purpose, followed by structured sections for Args and Returns. However, the 'ctx' parameter in Args is not explained in the schema, and the Returns section could be more specific (e.g., what keys are in the dict). Overall, it's efficient but has minor structural issues.

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 complexity (verifying external software installation), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks details on error cases, logging, and exact return structure. The output schema helps, but the description should do more to explain behavioral aspects, especially with no annotations provided.

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 description adds some meaning beyond the input schema: it explains that 'include_paths' controls whether searched paths are included in the response, and mentions 'ctx' as an MCP context for logging (though not in the schema). However, with 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter documented in the description (plus an undocumented 'ctx'), the description partially compensates but doesn't fully cover all parameters. The baseline is 3 since it adds value but doesn't fully bridge the coverage gap.

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: 'Verify OpenSCAD installation and return version info.' This specifies the verb ('verify') and resource ('OpenSCAD installation'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'render_single', which appears to be a different operation (rendering vs. verification).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling tool 'render_single' or any other context for usage. The only implied usage is to check OpenSCAD installation, but there's no explicit when/when-not guidance or prerequisites stated.

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