check_gtr_available

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the access restriction and the return structure (success, gtr_available, message), adding some transparency. However, it does not mention side effects, error behavior, or permission-related consequences when unauthorized.

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, with a single-purpose line, a restriction note, and a structured Args/Returns section. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 two parameters and no schema descriptions, the description should provide parameter details. It does cover the return structure, but the lack of parameter explanations and missing output schema (though reported present) leaves the description incomplete for effective use.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist. The description only lists parameter names ('repo_path', 'caller_agent_id') without any explanation of their meaning, format, or expected values. This fails to add value beyond the 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 the tool checks if 'gtr (git-worktree-runner)' is available. The verb '確認する' (confirm/check) is specific and matches the tool name. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_gtrconfig' or 'healthcheck_agent', which also perform checks but on different resources.

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 explicitly states 'Owner と Admin のみ使用可能' (Only Owner and Admin can use it), which provides a clear access restriction. However, it offers no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it describe prerequisites or context for usage.

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