zadig_environment_service_get

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Get' clearly signals a read-only retrieval with no mutation, which is useful. However, it does not disclose any behavioral nuances such as whether it operates only on production or non-production environments, permission requirements, or how the environment is selected.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is efficient and easy to parse, though slightly under-specified given the number of parameters and sibling tools.

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 has no annotations, five parameters, three optional, and overlapping sibling tools. The one-line description does not explain optional parameter semantics, production behavior, or when to prefer this over related tools, so an agent is not fully equipped to invoke it correctly. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but other context is still missing.

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 itself explains none of the five parameters. Parameter names like env_name and service_name are partly self-explanatory, but production, project_key, and workload_type are left undefined, and their defaults and optionality are not clarified.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('service detail'), and a scope ('in a Zadig environment'). This distinguishes it from list/delete/environment-level tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling 'zadig_service_get', which may be the non-environment variant.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'zadig_service_get' or 'zadig_environment_service_list'. The environment qualifier implies a use case, but no explicit context, exclusions, or alternatives are given.

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