check_environment

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden and clearly discloses a key behavioral trait: 'Only server names are sent to the API – credentials and config values stay local.' This addresses privacy concerns. It also implies the tool is read- only and non-destructive, though it does not detail auth needs or rate limits.

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 two sentences long, with the first sentence stating the core function and the second adding an important privacy guarantee. Every sentence is meaningful and front-loaded, with no wasted words.

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?

The description hints at the output ('shows trust scores and flags risky or unknown servers') but does not specify the format or structure. Given the tool has no output schema, additional detail would be beneficial, though the current description is sufficient for basic understanding.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for both 'scope' and 'dry_run' parameters (100% coverage). The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the action ('scan MCP servers'), the resources ('AI tools: Claude Desktop, Cursor, Windsurf'), and the purpose ('check each against AgentSeal registry, show trust scores'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like check_file and check_server by focusing on the environment's installed servers.

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 states when to use the tool (to check installed servers) and what it does (scans and checks registry). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like search_registry or check_server, nor does it specify when not to use it.

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