check_setup

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden: it discloses the three things that are inspected, which is useful, but says nothing about whether checks hit the network, whether failures throw vs. report, or what the result looks like. For a zero-parameter diagnostic that is an acceptable but not rich 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?

Two short sentences with zero waste; the check list is front-loaded and the directive to run it first is a natural trailing clause. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 trivially simple, parameterless check tool the description is nearly sufficient, but with no output schema and no annotations it leaves the agent guessing about the result shape and the remediation path when a component is missing. Adding one clause on the pass/fail outcome would close the 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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies — there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond confirming that no configuration input is required, which its call-with-nothing framing implicitly does.

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+resource in 'check whether this computer's environment is complete' and enumerates what is verified (ffmpeg, Groq key, translation backend). This clearly distinguishes it from the transcribe_* siblings, which all deal with running transcriptions rather than verifying the host environment.

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?

'裝完先跑這個' (run this first after installation) gives an explicit trigger condition for invoking the tool. It offers no exclusions or named alternatives, but the sibling set is a different workflow so no disambiguation is really needed.

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