environment_inspect

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful traits: discovery is non-mutating (no install/upgrade) and unsaved windows are excluded. It omits output character, cost, permissions, and scope of 'local'.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scoped by a limitation. Nothing wasted, though the second sentence is cryptic without context on what 'unsaved windows' refers to.

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 and no parameters are required, so the definition needn't explain return values. Still, it lacks the boundary against inventory_query and the meaning of 'local' and 'unsaved windows', which an agent needs to pick this tool confidently.

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 disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter claims are made or contradicted.

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 verb+resource: 'Discover local software'. But 'local software' is undefined — which software, at what granularity, is left to inference. Sibling inventory_query plausibly overlaps, and the description does nothing to separate the two.

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 only guidance is a negative constraint ('without installing/upgrading it'), which is really a safety statement rather than a usage rule. No when-to-use scenario and no alternative named among inventory_query or config_read.

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