env_check

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it discloses meaningful behavioral context: this is a session-start diagnostic whose result 'decides what the AI can do right now.' The verb 'Check' plus the enumerated probes imply a read-only capability test, though it never explicitly states there are no side effects.

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, no filler. The what-is-checked list is front-loaded and the operational timing note follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a zero-parameter diagnostic the description covers what is checked, when to run it, and why it matters. The only minor omission is an explicit read-only/no-side-effect statement.

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 are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and nothing in the description contradicts or undercuts that.

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 states a specific verb (Check) and resource (host environment), then enumerates exactly what is probed: qemu, qemu-img, git, cmake, ninja, mingw, /dev/kvm. This concrete list makes it unmistakably distinct from VM-oriented siblings like vm_status or workspace_status.

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?

It gives explicit timing guidance: 'Run once at session start.' That is clear when-to-use context. It does not name a when-not condition or an alternative tool, but for a session-bootstrap diagnostic there is no obvious sibling to route against.

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