get_environment

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

The description explicitly marks the tool as a read operation via '[READ]', disclosing its non-destructive nature. However, it does not mention any performance implications, permission requirements, or other behavioral details beyond that. Without annotations, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and list the data categories, followed by a parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what data is returned (fans, temp, power, CPU, memory). No missing critical context given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage but the description adds meaning by explaining the 'target' parameter as a device name from config with a default behavior (omit for default). This compensates well for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 it is a READ operation for hardware environment data including fans, temperature, power, CPU, and memory. This distinguishes it from many sibling tools that focus on networking or configuration, though a sibling 'device_health' may overlap.

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 provides guidance on the 'target' parameter but offers no information on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'device_health' or other monitoring tools. No when-not-to-use or context for selection is given.

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