Check exec environment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds 'lightweight' and 'known to the server,' suggesting a cheap cached status view, which is useful context. It does not cover authentication or staleness, but annotations carry the safety profile.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the action 'Return' and the key subject immediately. Every word contributes value.

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 tool is a parameterless, read-only status check with an output schema available, the description sufficiently covers the call contract. The high-level wording leaves specifics of the returned status to the output schema, which is appropriate. It could mention typical usage relative to exec_command, but that falls under usage guidance.

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?

With zero parameters and an empty input schema, schema coverage is complete by definition. The description does not need to explain parameters, and its statement is consistent with a parameterless call, earning the baseline 4.

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 clearly identifies the tool as returning exec_command sandbox and environment status, using the specific verb 'Return' and naming the resource. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like exec_command and server_info, though it does not enumerate what status fields are included.

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 gives no guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives such as exec_command or server_info. It does not state preconditions, use cases, or exclusions.

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