catia_check_environment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it works without a CATIA connection and is intended as a pre-connect diagnostic step, which is valuable for the agent.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The purpose and diagnostic items are front-loaded, and the usage trigger is placed clearly at the end.

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 diagnostic tool, the description covers purpose, checks performed, connection independence, and when to invoke it. Since there is no output schema, slightly more detail about the returned report structure would make it fully complete.

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 0 parameters, so the description carries no parameter-semantics burden. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this receives a 4.

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 opens with a specific verb, 'Diagnose the host,' and enumerates concrete checks: Python version and bitness, pywin32 import status, CATIA.Application COM registration, and MCP SDK. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like catia_connect and catia_status.

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 gives a strong trigger condition: 'run it first when catia_connect fails,' and notes it works without a CATIA connection. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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