check_environment

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

The description discloses that the tool reports whether binaries were found, their versions, and feature flags, and gives a concrete example of a build without WaveGen. It also mentions install hints for missing tools. While no annotations are provided, the description carries the behavioral burden well, though it could mention whether it modifies anything (it appears read-only).

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then details the specific checks and a concrete example. Every sentence adds value, and the install-hint note is useful without being verbose.

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 environment probe with an output schema present, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it reports, and when to use it. The output schema presumably details the return structure, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. Nothing critical 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 schema provides no parameter semantics. The description compensates by explaining what the tool checks and reports, which is sufficient for a no-argument probe tool. Baseline 4 for zero params is 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: probing the DualSPHysics toolchain for paths, versions, and solver features. It names specific binaries (GenCase, CPU solver, PartVTK, MeasureTool) and distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform actual simulation tasks.

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 instructs to call this tool first, and notes that missing tools come with install hints. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and implies it should precede other tools like run_case or validate_dambreak.

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