get_environment_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Inspect' suggests read-only behavior, which is a positive signal, but the description does not explicitly state that it makes no changes, whether it has side effects, or any access requirements. While concise, it leaves some behavioral nuance unstated.

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, front-loaded sentence that lists all the key resources to inspect. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool.

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's low complexity (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the main purpose. It names all relevant environment components, which is essential context. However, it could be slightly more complete by hinting at what type of information is returned (e.g., paths, versions), though the output schema likely covers that.

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 description is not required to explain parameter semantics. The baseline score for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to add anything beyond the schema, which is empty. It correctly focuses on what the tool inspects rather than parameters.

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 'Inspect' and clearly names five distinct resources (MD_DIRECTORY, MelonLoader, dotnet, template, installed mod DLLs), making its purpose unambiguous. It strongly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_mod_project, build_mod, and deploy_mod, which clearly perform different actions.

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 this is a diagnostic tool for checking the environment before or after other operations, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of alternatives. The sibling tool names provide context, but the description itself does not state exclusions or preferred scenarios.

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