status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states what is returned and explicitly calls out what is not returned, addressing a key safety concern (no secrets/tokens). The verb 'Report' implies a read-only, side-effect-free operation, though it could have been stated explicitly.

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 concise sentences: the first front-loads the full report contents, the second adds a clear negative. Every word adds value, with no repetition or unrelated information.

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 tool has no parameters and an output schema, the description's enumeration of returned fields is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. The explicit note about what is excluded adds important context. Minor omissions like error behavior or 'current snapshot' wording are not critical for a simple status 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description correctly omits parameter details, and the 100% schema coverage is trivially satisfied. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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 starts with a specific verb 'Report' and lists exact data items (OS, hostname, cwd, Python version, tool PATH presence), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like run or write_file without needing to name them.

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 implicitly communicates when to use the tool: any time an agent needs environment context. It also provides a specific exclusion ('Does not return secrets, tokens, or a home-directory listing'), which prevents misuse. It does not explicitly compare to siblings, but that is unnecessary given the specialized scope.

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