inspect_environment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses side effects (temporary synthetic/64x64 images are created and then closed), an explicit safety guarantee ('open images are not touched'), per-file error semantics (readable/missing/corrupt), and the null-coverage fallback when ra_deg/dec_deg are omitted. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then one clause-group per section, so the structure is scannable despite being a dense single paragraph. It is appropriately sized for a four-section diagnostic, though the run-on enumeration of per-section behaviour could be tightened.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe return content, and it mostly does: magnitudes/spectra for gaia, per-file status and coverage for mars, version/model/gpu-cpu for xterminators, memory and disk for system. A few return details (e.g. precise field names, failure modes when PixInsight sections error) remain implicit, keeping it short of a 5.

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 coverage is already 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains that sections default to all, that mars_files overrides the configured MARS files, and that omitting the ra/dec pair makes the probe position (0,0) and coverage null. This goes beyond the schema text.

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?

States a clear specific verb and resource: 'Report what this PixInsight installation has', and enumerates exactly what is probed (gaia, mars, xterminators, system). It is easy to distinguish from measure_* tools, but it never names its closest siblings (pixinsight_info, workspace_info, list_packs), leaving differentiation to inference.

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 this is a one-shot diagnostic and explains each section's behavior, but it never states when to run it versus alternatives like pixinsight_info or workspace_info, nor any prerequisites or warnings about cost. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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