validate_siril_binary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's purpose (testing whether a binary path works) but leaves 'works correctly' undefined—does it run the binary, check version, or verify permissions? It also doesn't state side effects or failure behavior. However, as a validation tool, the core behavior is reasonably clear, earning a mid-range score.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds a practical use case. Every word 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, full schema coverage, and an output schema present. The description explains what the tool does and when to use it; no additional context is needed for a tool of this complexity.

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 describes the only parameter 'binary_path' with 'Full path to the Siril binary to test,' providing 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema already offers, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Tests whether a specific Siril binary path works correctly,' which is a specific verb ('Tests') and resource ('Siril binary path'). It distinguishes from siblings like check_siril_version (version check) and find_siril_binary (locating a binary) by focusing on validation of a given path.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Useful for validating custom installations or non-standard locations.' This implies when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The context is sufficient to guide the agent.

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