check_installer_binary

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Check if openshift-install binary is available' and 'Binary existence check results,' without specifying whether it checks PATH, install_dir, executable permission, or what the return format is. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.

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: a single purpose sentence followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is clear and front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no annotations, and an output schema exists. However, the description leaves gaps about how availability is determined (e.g., system PATH vs. install_dir) and what constitutes 'available.' This is adequate but not fully complete.

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 schema provides no description for the install_dir parameter, but the tool description clarifies it as 'Optional installation directory to check for local binary.' This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema definition, though it could be more specific about path formats.

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 specific verb ('Check'), a specific resource ('openshift-install binary'), and a clear outcome ('is available'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools which handle configuration, network validation, or installation actions. The optional install_dir further clarifies the scope.

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 (checking existence of the binary) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives such as extract_openshift_installer. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions, so the context is only implicit from the tool's purpose.

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