SkyCut health check

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by listing the specific dependencies checked (Node, ffmpeg, ffprobe, videotoolbox encoders, ANTHROPIC_API_KEY). It doesn't contradict annotations, and no additional behavioral context is necessary for a read-only health check.

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 plus an instruction, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides a usage tip, achieving high 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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and annotations cover safety, the description adequately covers what the tool checks and when to use it. It could optionally describe the output format, but the lack is not critical for a simple diagnostic 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 tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% through an empty schema. Per guidelines, 0 parameters and high coverage give a baseline of 4, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb 'Report' and clearly identifies the resource: status of required dependencies. It lists the exact dependencies, which distinguishes this tool from siblings that focus on editing, analysis, and rendering.

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 to 'Run this first if any other tool returns unexpected errors,' providing clear context for when to use it. It doesn't specify when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient for a diagnostic tool.

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