Toolbox status

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

Annotations already communicate safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds behavioral context by stating the tool reports status and installation instructions rather than performing installations, which clarifies its non-mutating scope. It could mention response format, but the core behavior is transparent enough.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The key information—what the tool reports and when to use it—is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 status tool with annotations covering safety, the description is complete: it identifies the tool's purpose, the information it provides, and the precise invocation trigger. No output schema is required because the tool's outputs are summarized adequately by the description.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter burden for the description to address. The description still clarifies what the tool covers, which is sufficient given the empty schema.

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 this tool reports which OSINT tools the server can run on this machine and how to install missing ones. It is distinct from the sibling tools, which perform specific OSINT searches rather than report on toolbox availability.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to call it: 'Call it when a tool you need is not available.' This direct trigger condition is sufficient for a meta-status tool and no alternative is needed since siblings are the tools being checked, not competitors.

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