stem_backends

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of conveying behavior. 'Which ... this machine has' suggests a read-only informational query, and 'how to enable them' suggests the tool reports enablement guidance rather than mutating configuration. However, it is not explicit about whether the tool modifies anything or only returns information.

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 a single sentence with no filler, and the core subject ('separation backends on this machine') is front-loaded. Every clause adds useful information.

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 description provides enough context for an agent to select the tool: it reports available backend types and enablement guidance, and there are no input parameters to prepare. It could be slightly clearer about whether the response contains instructions or the tool itself performs enablement, but this is a minor gap for a zero-parameter informational tool.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. This matches the baseline for parameterless tools.

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 identifies the resource (separation backends on this machine) and the topic (which backends are available and how to enable them), even naming the two backend types. It is distinguishable from siblings like separate_stems or stem_job_status, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'check.'

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 purpose implies this should be checked before or alongside running stem separation, but the description never explicitly says when to use it versus the sibling tools. There is no when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives.

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