we_environment_probe

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'Does not change engine settings' largely restates the safety profile. The phrase 'actual capability evidence' vs 'configured engine version' hints the return contrasts declared configuration against observed runtime, which is modest added context but no detail on format or failure modes.

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 with no waste, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the clarifying non-mutation note.

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?

For a zero-param read-only probe with no output schema, the description adequately covers what it reads and reassures it is non-mutating. It could say more about what the capability evidence contains, but nothing critical to calling it correctly is missing.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The empty schema means there is nothing for the description to disambiguate.

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 (Read) and resource (configured engine version and actual capability evidence), so the agent knows this returns environment/capability data. It is reasonably distinct from the project/preview siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with we_project_inspect.

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?

Usage is only implied – the 'probe the environment' framing suggests a pre-flight check, and 'Does not change engine settings' hints it is safe to call anytime, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-a-sibling guidance.

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