Check Installation

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

Description states the server can attempt to install if not found, implying a potential mutation. This contradicts annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), resulting in a serious inconsistency. Score 1 due to contradiction.

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?

Two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and follow up with the side effect. No unnecessary words.

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 lacks details on the return format (e.g., boolean or object) and the contradiction between the side effect and annotations undermines completeness. Adequate for a simple tool but incomplete due to inconsistency.

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?

No parameters defined, schema coverage is 100%. Description adds value by specifying what is checked (msb and libkrunfw) and the installation fallback, going beyond the empty 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?

Description clearly states the tool verifies availability of msb and libkrunfw and returns installation status. It distinguishes itself from all sibling sandbox/volume tools.

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?

Context is clear: it is a prerequisite check for system components. No sibling tools overlap in purpose, and usage context is implied. However, no explicit when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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