Report the platform, working directory, active and installed shells, effective configuration, and guardrails so agents know the environment before running commands.
Report the environment: platform, server cwd, active shell, which shells are installed, effective config and any active guardrails. Call this once at the start if you need to know what you are driving.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Report' plus 'call this once' implies a safe, idempotent read with no side effects, and it discloses that guardrails and effective config are included. It does not explicitly confirm read-only/no-mutation behavior, nor describe the output shape, so the behavioral picture is only partially filled in.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the scope enumeration and closed with the actionable usage cue. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.
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?
With no output schema, the description must convey what comes back, and listing the reported categories (platform, cwd, shell, config, guardrails) does that reasonably well. It could be slightly more explicit about return structure, but an agent has enough to decide to call it.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document beyond what the schema already shows; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly does not invent parameter guidance.
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?
States a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('the environment') and enumerates exactly what is covered: platform, server cwd, active shell, installed shells, effective config, guardrails. It is clearly an inspection tool, though it never explicitly differentiates itself from the nearby sys_info or project_info siblings.
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?
"Call this once at the start if you need to know what you are driving" gives a clear when-to-use condition and a frequency constraint ('once'). It stops short of naming alternatives (sys_info, vars) that an agent might choose instead for overlapping information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.