env_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states it reports and resolves issues, but 'resolve' is ambiguous—it could imply fixing or just diagnosing. The description does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or non-destructive, which is a significant gap for a tool that may affect environment state.

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?

The description is a single sentence of 12 words, front-loading the key action and subjects. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must provide all context. It covers the main outputs (paths, hash, issues) but omits details like return format, whether the tool is safe to run repeatedly, or if 'resolve' involves any side effects. The description is minimally adequate for a simple informational tool but leaves gaps.

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 and 100% schema description coverage (empty schema), so the description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline for no parameters is 4; the description's overview of what the tool does is sufficient for parameter semantics.

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 specifies a clear verb ('Resolve and report') and concrete resources ('MT4/5 paths, terminal hash, missing-component issues'), making the tool's purpose distinct from sibling diagnostic tools like list_terminals or select_terminal. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from related tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_terminals, select_terminal). It lacks any when/when-not or contextual cues, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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