environment_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds that the scan is local ('this computer') and that the output includes installation instructions, but says nothing about latency, whether detection is cached, or how missing engines are represented.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the primary action, no filler or repetition of the tool name. Nothing can be trimmed without losing information.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey what comes back; it does so only in outline (available engines plus install instructions) without structure, fields, or failure behavior. The unexplained language parameter is the largest remaining hole for a simple read-only tool.

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 single parameter is an enum (ja/en/zh) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. An agent cannot tell from either source whether it controls the language of the reported engine list or something else, which is a meaningful gap for a one-parameter tool.

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 specific verb and resource: lists solver engines available on this machine, plus installation guidance for missing ones. That is concrete enough to distinguish it from every sibling, which all operate on cases, meshes, jobs, or results rather than the local environment.

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 remediation phrase 'how to install missing ones' implies the intended context (before running a simulation, when an engine is absent), but it never states when to call this versus, say, surrogate_status or run_simulation, nor any prerequisites or frequency guidance.

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