Environment preflight

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this tool has no side effects, lowering the bar for behavioral disclosure. The description adds some useful behavior by noting that it 'flags LLM-only servers like Ollama,' but does not explain what happens if prerequisites are missing or how results are surfaced.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Check prereqs') and then efficiently lists the relevant items. No unnecessary words or repetition are present.

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 low complexity of the tool, a single optional parameter, and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It could mention what the tool returns or warns about, but the output schema likely covers that, so this is a minor gap.

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 already provides full coverage for the single 'dir' parameter with description 'repo to check for an installed skill.' The tool description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's function as checking environment prerequisites and enumerates specific items like node, ffmpeg, Chrome, TTS/STT endpoint, API key, playwright, and installed skill. This distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on environment readiness rather than rendering, recording, or other operations.

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 does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention the tool should be run before rendering or similar workflows. It only lists what is checked, leaving the decision of when to invoke it to inference.

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