check_environment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds context by naming the specific checks (authorized root, R/FisPro availability), which goes beyond the tool name, but it does not disclose the return/error behavior or explicitly state that the check is non-destructive.

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?

A single, front-loaded French sentence naming the verb and the three specific checks. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or redundant content.

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 0-parameter environment check with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers purpose and scope, telling the agent exactly what is verified. The only gap is the lack of result-format details, which could help the agent interpret the outcome, but the simplicity of the tool makes this a minor omission.

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 input schema has zero properties, making schema coverage trivially 100%. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description correctly avoids inventing parameter details, providing no additional syntactical burden.

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 the specific verb 'Vérifie' (checks) with a clear resource ('la configuration' — the environment configuration) and lists concrete aspects verified (authorized root, R availability, FisPro package). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_fis and infer, which operate on FIS objects rather than the runtime environment.

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 implies the tool is a preflight check (verifying R and FisPro availability) before using the sibling FIS tools, but it does not explicitly state when to invoke it or when to prefer alternatives. No exclusions, prerequisites, or explicit 'use this when' guidance is provided.

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