system_environment

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral transparency. It conveys the tool is authoritative and not a probing tool, but it does not explicitly state whether it has side effects, what exactly 'registered logical program names' means, or potential output format limitations, leaving some ambiguity.

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 two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states purpose, the second provides usage guidance—concise and well-structured.

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 simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and gives a warning about probing. It's fairly complete, though 'authoritative system execution environment' could be more precisely defined.

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, and the schema is empty. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. It adds context about the tool's output scope but not parameter details.

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 tool returns the 'authoritative system execution environment and registered logical program names', which is specific and differentiated from the sibling tool system_exec by explicitly noting program availability is covered there.

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 explicitly tells when not to use this tool: 'do not probe with which, where, command -v, or Get-Command', and directs users to system_exec for program availability, providing clear alternatives and context.

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