environment_memory

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

Annotations already provide critical behavioral hints: destructiveHint=true (indicating potential data modification) and readOnlyHint=false (confirming write capability). The description adds useful context by specifying the storage location ('~/.local_file_operations/.env 文件中'), which isn't covered by annotations. However, it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like whether updates are persistent, if there are rate limits, or what happens on conflicts. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by specific examples. Each sentence earns its place by providing actionable information. However, the mix of Chinese and English in the examples slightly affects readability, and the structure could be more polished with clearer separation between description and examples.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, destructive operations) and rich structured data (100% schema coverage, annotations, output schema exists), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, storage location, and provides usage examples. Since an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. The main gap is lack of explicit guidance on when to use versus sibling tools, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to operate the tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it provides example usage patterns that illustrate how parameters combine (e.g., operation='read' with output_format='json'), but doesn't explain parameter semantics beyond what the schema's descriptions and enums already provide. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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: '读取、更新和获取环境变量' (read, update, and get environment variables), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like file_edit or file_operation by focusing specifically on environment variables stored in a specific file. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate between 'read' and 'get' operations beyond what the schema provides.

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 implied usage through examples: it shows when to use 'read' (to read all variables) and 'update' (to set a variable). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like file_edit (which could potentially edit the .env file directly) or provide clear exclusions. The examples give context but lack explicit guidance on tool selection.

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