Path environment adapter (read-only)

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: it says the tool takes no arguments and enumerates the reported data, including env class, HOME/PREFIX/TMPDIR, Android roots, noexec mounts, and notes. It also lists the return fields, which is valuable given there is no output schema.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then adds the no-argument note, sibling boundary, and return shape without filler. The density is high but every sentence serves selection or invocation.

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 lack of an output schema, the description helpfully lists the returned keys and explains what environment information is reported. It is complete for a zero-parameter read-only diagnostic tool, though it could mention whether the reported environment is cached or live.

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 the baseline is 4; the description confirms "Takes no arguments," aligning with the empty schema. There are no parameter semantics beyond that, and none are needed.

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 and resource: "Report the runtime's path environment," and immediately explains the practical purpose: translating host paths correctly. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from `resolve_path`, so an agent can identify the tool without opening sibling schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit routing rule: use `path_adapter` when the environment itself is unknown, and use `resolve_path` to validate a single candidate path. This names the alternative and the condition that selects it.

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