env_check

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only'. It adds valuable behavioral context by explaining the comparison against the fork snapshot and describing the return (changed or missing variables), going beyond the annotation.

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 concise sentences with a useful analogy. Information is front-loaded with the action and purpose, and every sentence earns its place without unnecessary verbosity.

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 read-only diff tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the function, when to use it, and what it returns. It could be more detailed about the return format, but the high-level return description is adequate for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 description does not explain the parameters app_id and fork_id, and schema coverage is 0%. While the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not compensate for the missing metadata, leaving agents to infer the role of each parameter.

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 uses a specific verb 'Diff' and clearly scopes the resource: the current process environment versus the snapshot taken at fork_create. This distinguishes the tool from the many fork-related siblings by focusing on environment drift rather than fork lifecycle operations.

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 states the tool is meant to catch drift 'before merging', giving a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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