check_environment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Detect' aligns with this safety profile. The description adds value by enumerating the specific data gathered (app, folder, features, limitations), which goes beyond the annotation. It does not mention side effects or output format, but for a read-only inspection tool this is acceptable.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the key verb ('Detect') and then enumerates the objects in a natural, clear order. This is efficient and complete.

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, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential behavior. It could be marginally more complete by mentioning the return format (e.g., a structured list), but an agent can infer the output type from the domain and the 'detect' semantics. The description adequately captures the tool's purpose.

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 coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter burden for the description to offset. The description correctly implies no arguments are required. Nothing else is needed for parameter understanding.

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 ('Detect') and names concrete resources ('installed app, local draft folder, implemented features and limitations'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_draft, edit_draft, or list_managed_projects, which perform active operations. An agent can immediately understand this is an environment inspection tool.

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?

No guidance is given on when to call this tool versus others. There is no mention of any prerequisite, recommended use case, or explicit alternative to use instead. The description states only the action, not the circumstances that should lead an agent to invoke it.

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