show_environment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only mentions the type of readings returned (power, fan, temperature) but omits critical details like whether it is read-only, destructive, or requires special permissions. The description does not disclose side effects or safety profile.

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 with three short sentences: a title line, a returns line, and an args line. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no unnecessary words, earning its brevity.

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 tool is simple with one parameter, and an output schema exists (based on context signals). The description explains the input and general output content. It is nearly complete; the only minor gap is not stating that the output schema provides detailed structure, but that is acceptable given its presence.

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 for the single parameter 'device'. The description adds meaningful context: 'Name of the device as defined in devices.yaml', specifying the expected format and source. 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 the tool shows environmental monitoring on a network device and specifies it returns power supply, fan, and temperature sensor readings. The verb 'Show' and resource 'environmental monitoring' are specific and distinct from sibling tools like show_cpu or show_system_info.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit context about prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to other show tools, leaving the agent to infer usage without direction.

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