env.compatibility_matrix

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Return' implies a read-only operationcase, but the description does not explicitly state that it is side-effect-free, whether it requires network access, or whether it queries local metadata.

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, precisely worded sentence conveys the entire purpose with no filler. The key noun phrase 'supported host/platform requirements' is front-loaded and unambiguous enough for agent selection.

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?

For a zero-parameter, low-complexity query, the description is minimally adequate. However, it provides no hint of the return format, whether the result is a list or a structured object, or how this might feed into preflight checks, so an agent must call the tool to learn more.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema is complete. The description adds relevant meaning about what the returned information represents, keeping this at the baseline 4 for parameterless tools.

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 action ('Return') and the resource ('supported host/platform requirements for this MCP package'). It is distinguishable from sibling environment tools like env.preflight and env.ensure_appium, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as env.preflight or build.detect_project. The description only says what it returns, not under what circumstances an agent should call it.

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