check_installation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and repeatability. The description adds that it reports a version, but no additional behavioral details (e.g., exit codes, network usage, side effects) are given. With annotations present, the description doesn't contradict them and provides minimal useful context, but doesn't go beyond what a straightforward 'check' implies.

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, complete sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the tool's action and result, making it appropriately concise.

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?

For a tool with no parameters, an output schema present, and strong annotations, the description is sufficient. It states the purpose and the expected output (version), and the structured data covers the rest. There are no missing elements for such a simple tool.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema is an empty object. The baseline for no parameters is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since none exist; it correctly leaves parameter semantics out.

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: checking whether uv is installed and reporting its version. The verb 'check' plus resource 'uv' and output 'version' make it unambiguous. It differentiates from siblings like self_version (which likely reports this tool's own version) by specifying 'uv'.

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, typical use cases, or contrast with sibling tools such as self_version or diagnose_environment. For a simple check tool, some context about when to invoke it (e.g., before running uv commands) would be helpful.

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