Get Environment Verification

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

readOnlyHint already signals a safe read, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it reports per-environment aggregates, contract-test outcomes, spec versions, and pending cases. It also discloses the 'requires project context' precondition, which helps the agent set context before invoking.

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?

Two compact sentences deliver the core purpose, the specific returned fields, the trustworthiness interpretation, and a required precondition with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool, the description fully covers what data will be returned and what context is needed. Since there is no output schema, the description appropriately names the fields the agent should expect, and the readOnlyHint covers safety concerns.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The description handles this correctly by not inventing parameters, and the 'requires project context' note is a context-level clarification rather than a parameter requirement.

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 states a specific verb ('get') and resource ('environment verification'), and enumerates the exact data returned: last contract-test run time, result, spec version, and pending case count. The trustworthiness phrase further distinguishes it from general test-result or contract-drift 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?

The description implies when to use this tool: when you need environment-level verification status and trustworthiness of contract-test results. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools such as get_test_results or get_contract_drift.

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