Detect Magento Environment

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only that it 'probes the database schema,' which is a minor behavioral detail (read-only probe) but does not disclose additional traits such as performance impact or potential errors. With annotations covering safety, the added value is limited.

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 with zero fluff. The core purpose (what it detects and that it should run first) is front-loaded, and the structure is efficient and clear.

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 tool has an output schema, so return values are covered. Annotations cover safety and idempotency. The description explains what the tool detects and when to use it. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by pointing to 'list_connection_profiles' for the profile parameter, which helps the agent determine valid values. It also clarifies the 'magentoRoot' default via env var or auto-discovery, which is context beyond the schema description.

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 function: 'Probes the database schema to detect OSS vs Commerce (row_id staging), MSI, and B2B availability.' It uses a specific verb ('probes') and resource ('database schema'), and explicitly lists what it detects. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_msi_stock_status or get_b2b_negotiable_quotes, which are specialized sub-queries.

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 explicitly says 'Run this first on an unfamiliar installation before using edition-specific tools,' which tells the agent exactly when to use it. However, it does not name specific alternative tools or provide explicit 'when not to use' conditions, though the guidance implicitly covers this.

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