environment_inventory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is partly covered; the description nonetheless adds real signal: ports are 'best-effort' (results may be incomplete), the snapshot is only a feed, and it will not flip allowWrite. It omits operational traits such as cost/duration of the scan or whether results are cached, which would matter for an open-world probe.

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: the payload is front-loaded in the first, the safety/behavioral constraint in the second. Every clause carries information and none is filler.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description does the heavy lifting by enumerating the returned fields, which is what an agent needs to decide if this snapshot answers its question. It stops short of saying how the snapshot is surfaced to the suggest feed (returned inline vs. persisted), a minor remaining 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 no parameters, so there is no parameter surface to document and the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description contradicts or obscures the empty input 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 names the artifact precisely (an Environment Plane snapshot) and enumerates exactly what is captured: OS/arch, permission hints, listening ports, runtimes, container clues, config paths. The closing clause ('never auto-registers') implicitly separates it from mcp_add / capability_register / discovery_suggest, so an agent can place it without opening any schema.

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?

It states the trigger mode ('on-demand') and the downstream consumer ('feeds suggest only'), which tells the agent where this fits in a discovery workflow. It also gives hard exclusions (never auto-registers, never sets allowWrite=true), clarifying it is not a substitute for mcp_add. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over siblings like discovery_probe or discovery_scan_host, so it stops short of a full when/when-not statement.

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