Tool Dependency Status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It frames the tool as a detection/lookup operation rather than a mutating one. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating that it does not install dependencies or modify the system, though '探测' strongly implies read-only behavior.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core function and followed by the practical usage condition. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 is sufficient for a zero-parameter diagnostic tool, especially since an output schema exists. The phrase '可解锁工具' (unlockable tools) is slightly ambiguous, but the overall trigger condition and purpose are complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 already covers them completely, so the description need not add parameter-level detail. It adds no parameter-specific semantics, but none are required in this case.

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 ('探测' / detect) with clear objects: system dependencies, installation commands, and unlockable tools. This clearly distinguishes the tool from the sibling PDF-processing tools and identifies it as a diagnostic utility.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger condition: when a tool reports missing_dependency, look here first. This tells an agent exactly when to invoke this tool and establishes priority over other possible diagnostic actions.

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