diagnostic_env

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'checks' environment variables, implying read-only behavior, but does not describe what the check returns, whether it has side effects, or any permission requirements. This is minimal disclosure.

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, compact sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the tool's purpose ('Diagnostic tool') and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete for calling it. However, it does not describe what the agent should expect in the response (e.g., whether it returns environment variable values, a status, or logs). This missing return-value context is a notable gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meaning, and the schema coverage is effectively 100% (vacuous). No additional explanation is needed.

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 states the action ('check'), the resource ('environment variables'), and the context ('for ediff approval'). This distinguishes it from the CRUD-oriented sibling tools. However, the term 'ediff approval' is not explained, leaving some ambiguity for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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 use as a diagnostic tool, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Since it is the only diagnostic tool among siblings, the implied usage is somewhat clear, but explicit guidance is missing.

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