check_environment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral details such as the loopback probe with short timeout, and the null java when no JDK is found. It could be more explicit about being read-only with no side effects, but the disclosed details are valuable.

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 a single, information-dense sentence listing all relevant outputs, followed by two short, high-value sentences about usage and a null case. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return values: java info, workdir, directory contents, JVM status, and counts. It lacks specifics about error behavior or timeout outcomes, but the core diagnostic information is thoroughly covered.

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 0 parameters and the schema shows no properties, so there is nothing to document. Per calibration, a baseline of 4 is appropriate; the description does not need to add 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 opens with 'Report the current environment' and then enumerates specific outputs (java path/version, workdir, hmcl dir contents, JVM running status, counts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like install_hmcl or launch_game, which perform actions, while this tool is purely diagnostic.

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 phrase 'Run this first to diagnose setup problems' gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool and implies it should precede other tools. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but given the tool's diagnostic nature, this is sufficient context.

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