Environment Doctor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds 'harness-agnostic setup verification' but does not contradict annotations. No additional behavioral disclosure needed beyond annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action verb 'Probe', and every word adds value. No redundancy or wasted phrases.

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 zero parameters, strong annotations, and an output schema (not shown but present), the description fully covers the tool's purpose and usage context. No gaps in information for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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 input schema has no parameters, so there is nothing to explain. Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline of 4 is appropriate as there are no missing 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 clearly states the tool probes multiple environment aspects (runtime, platform, executables, etc.) and specifies its use case (harness-agnostic setup verification). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on general environment probing vs. specific repo/plugin/file tools.

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 a clear usage context ('harness-agnostic setup verification') but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The sibling list implies differentiation, but explicit guidance would improve clarity.

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