check_language_available

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks availability and returns a 'Success message', but doesn't explain what constitutes availability (e.g., installed, loaded, compatible), error conditions, or performance implications. This is inadequate for a tool that likely involves system-level checks, leaving key behavioral traits unspecified.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. The Args and Returns sections are structured but include minimal detail. While efficient, the 'Success message' return value is vague and could be more informative, slightly reducing clarity without adding unnecessary length.

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 complexity of checking language parsers, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'available' means, error handling, and the structure of the return value. This leaves significant gaps for the agent to understand the tool's behavior and outcomes, making it insufficient for reliable use.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds the parameter 'language' with a brief explanation ('Language to check'), but doesn't specify format (e.g., string identifiers like 'python', 'javascript'), constraints, or examples. This provides basic meaning but falls short of fully documenting the parameter, resulting in a baseline score.

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 purpose: 'Check if a tree-sitter language parser is available.' It specifies the verb ('Check') and resource ('tree-sitter language parser'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_languages' or 'get_ast', which might offer related functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as whether a language needs to be installed or configured first, or compare it to siblings like 'list_languages' that might list available languages. This lack of context leaves the agent unsure about optimal usage scenarios.

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