environment_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the useful nuance that results reflect 'actual local' capabilities (a live probe, not static documentation), but says nothing about latency, side effects, or what the probe returns.

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 with no padding. It is efficient, though at 12 words it is arguably under-specified rather than concise, and 'Java/router' phrasing is slightly cryptic.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, and it does not — an agent cannot know whether it gets version strings, booleans, or a capability matrix. For a discovery tool this is the main missing piece, though the annotations and zero-parameter schema keep the description minimally sufficient.

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 the baseline is 4. Neither the schema nor the description needs to document inputs, and the description introduces no phantom parameters.

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 verb 'Discover' plus the resource 'capabilities' clearly identifies this as an environment/probe tool, and the mention of KiCad, native Python bridge, and Java/router distinguishes it from the PCB workflow siblings (import, inspect, route, repair). It is somewhat vague about what 'capabilities' concretely means, but an agent can tell it apart from every sibling.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The agent is left to infer that this is a first-step diagnostic call rather than something invoked mid-workflow. A single clause like 'call before submitting any PCB job' would have fixed this.

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