sassy_setup_check_tools

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the tool's read-only nature implicitly by saying 'report availability' and by contrasting with auto-install. It also reveals the Tesseract dependency. It doesn't explicitly say it makes no system changes, but the contrast with sassy_setup_tools strongly implies it. The list of checked items adds behavioral detail.

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 brief and well-structured. The first sentence states the core action, the second paragraph enumerates the checks, and the final sentence provides the alternative. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 tool with no inputs and an output schema (which likely explains the return format), the description is sufficient. It covers the purpose, the specific items checked, the required dependency, and the alternative tool. It doesn't mention side effects, but given it's a check tool and the output schema exists, this is acceptable. A small gap is the absence of any note about whether the scan requires network access, but that's minor.

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 input schema is trivially 100% covered. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description doesn't need to add parameter details. It adds context about what is checked, but that is scope, not parameter semantics. No deduction needed.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource statement: 'Scan for external tools and report availability.' It lists specific tools and packages, which unambiguously defines its scope. It also distinguishes itself from sibling sassy_setup_tools by explicitly directing auto-install elsewhere.

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 a direct alternative: 'Use sassy_setup_tools for winget-based auto-install.' This clarifies that the current tool is for checking, not installing. It also states the prerequisite 'Tesseract is required,' which tells the agent when this check is needed. However, it doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it (e.g., if you need a full setup), but the alternative reference covers that.

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