environment_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; 'using read-only calls' largely restates that. The genuinely additive piece is the hard constraint that it never starts a Codespace, which governs what the tool will and won't do.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that carries the action and the key constraint with no filler. Nothing wastes the agent's attention.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the read-only/Codespace constraints are stated. However, with zero parameter coverage the definition leaves the two inputs, especially expectedAccount's role in identity verification, undocumented.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across two parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. Neither locale nor expectedAccount is mentioned, leaving the identity-matching semantics of expectedAccount entirely unexplained.

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 resources (local gh CLI and current GitHub identity), and the 'never start a Codespace' clause separates it from codespace_prepare. 'local gh' is mildly jargon-y, but the action is unambiguous.

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 negative constraint ('never start a Codespace') hints at the boundary with codespace_prepare, but there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this vs runner_probe or project_inspect. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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