inspect_environment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels. It discloses no import side effects, explains the exact meaning and limitation of synthesizer_installed (spec lookup only, broken C extensions invisible), states import_error is always None, and explains that only set environment variables are reported to avoid importing. This is thorough and honest about tool behavior.

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?

Every sentence adds value: purpose, cost/safety, limitation of the installed check, and the exact return mapping with semantic notes. The structure front-loads the core purpose, then details nuances. No filler or redundancy.

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's simplicity (no params, clear output), the description fully documents all return keys, their meanings, and the reasoning behind values like import_error=None. The output schema exists and is enriched by this description. Nothing an agent needs to invoke correctly is missing.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per rules. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't waste space on them. The mention of environment variables is about output, not parameters, so it's appropriate.

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 'Report Python and Synthesizer environment facts,' a clear verb-resource pair. It differentiates from the sibling inspect_synthesizer_api by explicitly stating it never imports Synthesizer, which tells the agent exactly what this tool does and doesn't do.

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 explicitly contrasts itself with inspect_synthesizer_api: 'Synthesizer is never imported here, so this is cheap and has no side effects' and 'only inspect_synthesizer_api, which does import, can populate it.' This gives the agent a clear when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use decision, fulfilling the guideline requirement beyond mere context.

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