Tool Dependency Status

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries some burden. It discloses that the tool probes dependencies and returns installation commands, but it doesn't state whether this performs system checks, downloads anything, or merely reads configuration. However, for a dependency-check tool, this is reasonable and not misleading; a middling score is appropriate.

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 concise sentence that packs the resource (system dependencies), the purpose (detect and provide installation commands), and a usage trigger. No wasted words.

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: it names dependencies, the output (installation commands), and the error context. An output schema exists, so return values don't need elaboration. It could add more detail about whether it actually installs or just reports, but that 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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter ambiguity. The description is clear that the tool is about dependency status, not about asking for user input. This is effectively complete.

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 explicitly states the tool detects system dependencies (qpdf/poppler/tesseract/ghostscript) and installation commands. It also tells the agent to consult this tool when a missing_dependency error occurs, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition: '工具报 missing_dependency 时先看这里' (when a tool reports missing_dependency, check here first). This directly tells the agent when to use this tool before troubleshooting, which is clear usage guidance.

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