env_info

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

The term 'resolve' implies potential modification, but the description doesn't clarify if the tool is read-only or if it fixes issues automatically. With no annotations, the agent cannot determine side effects or safety characteristics.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured by front-loading the verb 'report' before 'resolve' to emphasize the primary action.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description is minimal but adequate. It lists the key outputs (paths, hash, issues) but doesn't specify the return format or whether it reports errors versus successes.

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 no parameters, so the schema already conveys full coverage. The description adds value by explaining what the tool outputs (paths, hash, missing components), which is not redundant with the schema.

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 identifies the tool's function: resolving and reporting MT4/5 paths, terminal hash, and missing-component issues. It uses a specific verb ('resolve and report') and resource names, making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'list_terminals' or other diagnostic tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_terminals' or 'compile'. The description lacks context for an agent to decide which tool is appropriate.

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