env_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the aggregate diagnostic output ('能干什么、缺什么、缺了会导致哪些工具不可用') and, importantly, the honesty constraint that it only reports what it actually probed and explains why anything unprobed is missing. It does not restate return format, which is acceptable since an output schema exists.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and its scope in the first line, then the trigger condition, then a behavioral caveat. Each of the three statements adds distinct information; nothing is redundant with the name or schema.

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 diagnostic with a full output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, and a key behavioral caveat, which is sufficient to call it correctly. The only minor omission is any indication of cost or runtime when probing many subsystems.

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 there is nothing to document beyond the schema; baseline 4 applies. No parameter meaning is missing or ambiguous.

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?

States a concrete verb (self-check) and enumerates the specific resources it inspects — dependencies, serial, programmer/flasher, knowledge-base root, version — and frames itself as a one-shot aggregate ('一次问清'), which separates it from granular siblings like toolchain_status, probe_list, and flash_tool_detect. An agent can identify it as the environment entry point without opening the 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?

Explicitly says when to run it ('拿到陌生机器、或工具突然不好使时先跑这个') and articulates the benefit over trial-and-error. It stops short of naming an alternative tool to use instead in specific cases, so the routing to siblings is implied rather than stated.

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