env_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds non-obvious behavioral context: it relies on a snapshot taken at fork_create and reports both changed and missing variables. The return behavior is stated, which is especially valuable since there is no output schema.

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 filler. It front-loads the core behavior, then gives the use context and expected return, and finishes with a clear safety note. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description is mostly complete for a safe read-only diagnostic: it explains what it compares, when it is called for, and what results are returned. The missing parameter definitions and lack of any note about what happens if no snapshot exists or if the diff is empty leave moderate gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain app_id or fork_id beyond implicitly referencing the 'snapshot taken at fork_create'. The fork_id is contextually hinted, but app_id is entirely unexplained, so the agent has to guess which application or fork scope it refers to.

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 uses a specific verb ('Diff') and names the exact resource ('current process environment against the snapshot taken at fork_create'). It also states the return content ('variables that changed or went missing'), making the tool's purpose immediately identifiable and distinct from generic audit or log tools.

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 gives clear context that this tool is meant to be used before merging a fork, to catch environment drift. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'before merging' guidance plus the fork-family siblings makes the invocation context clear enough.

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