check_environment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's read-like behavior (checking, no side effects implied) and details the return value sections (mcp, deps, browser, overall_ok, recommendations). It also notes version changes (session checks removed). However, it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive.

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 concise: two sentences plus a structured list of return sections. It front-loads the purpose and includes relevant version history. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy.

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, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context: what is checked, the return structure, and a version note. It is complete for the agent to understand and invoke the 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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty). Per guidelines, the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining the output structure but cannot add parameter semantics since there are none.

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's verb ('check') and resource ('MCP environment, dependencies, and browser state'). It lists specific components checked (MCP version, dependencies like esprima and playwright, browser state) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'compare_env' by focusing on a self-check rather than comparison.

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 the tool is for initial diagnostics but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like 'reset_browser_state' or 'compare_env'. The context is implicit, lacking when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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