zadig_environment_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose any potential edge cases, authentication needs, or behavior for nonexistent environments. It provides no context beyond the basic read intent.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, and the main action is front-loaded. However, it is under-specified: the terseness omits any parameter or usage context that would justify such brevity. It is concise but not complete enough to be 'appropriately sized.'

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 three parameters with 0% schema description coverage and no annotations, this one-line description is insufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly in all cases. While the output schema may describe returns, the input semantics for `production` and `project_key` remain unexplained. The definition lacks contextual guidance about what makes this environment lookup different from related tools.

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 adds no explanation for the three parameters (`env_name`, `production`, `project_key`). An agent cannot infer the role of `production` or `project_key` from this description, and the schema itself lacks descriptions, leaving the agent without meaningful guidance.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Get a Zadig environment detail.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like `zadig_environment_list` (list vs. detail) and `zadig_environment_delete` (delete vs. get), though it does not explicitly name alternatives. It is clear but relies on the tool name for full differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `zadig_environment_list` or `zadig_environment_service_get`. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or context in which this specific getter is preferred.

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