AviUtl2 環境情報の取得

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 explicitly lists the returned data fields and implies a read-only operation through its name and content. It does not detail side effects or error conditions, but for a getter tool this is acceptable.

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 dense sentence that packs all necessary information, including the recommended usage, without any waste. It is front-loaded and every part 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?

With no output schema, the description serves as a de facto specification by listing the exact fields returned. It is complete for a simple environment info tool, though it could mention prerequisites like AviUtl2 being installed.

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, and the schema reflects this with no properties. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description appropriately focuses on the output rather than inputs, which is correct for a no-parameter tool.

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 that the tool returns AviUtl2 installation state including specific fields like path, version, data folder, and running status. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling action tools such as launch_aviutl2 or install_script.

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 recommends calling this tool once first, providing clear context for when to use it as an initialization step. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but no alternative for environment info exists among the siblings, so this is sufficient guidance.

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