Check STATIC environment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds useful context about what is probed (installation, analyzers, server URL, AccessKey) and that no project is required. It does not describe the shape of the diagnostic result or whether failures raise errors versus being reported inline, which matters for a troubleshooting tool.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what is checked, that no project is needed, and when to invoke it. The troubleshooting trigger is placed last where it functions as an actionable cue, with no 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?

With no output schema, the description must hint at what comes back; it does so by naming the checked components and the Python runtime report. For a zero-parameter read-only diagnostic this is nearly sufficient, with only the failure-reporting format left implicit.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The clause "Needs no project" usefully explains why no scope argument exists, pre-empting an agent from hunting for a project parameter.

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 (Check) and enumerates the exact resources verified: local STATIC installation, analyzers, server URL, AccessKey, plus a Python-runtime report. This is far more than a restatement of the name. It stops short of naming which sibling it differs from (e.g. statica_status or statica_bootstrap_verify), so an agent must infer the boundary from the sibling list.

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?

"Run this first when other STATICA tools fail with setup errors" gives a concrete trigger condition, and "Needs no project" states a precondition that separates it from project-scoped tools. No explicit when-not or named alternative is given, which keeps it below a 5.

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