compute.inspect_environment

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

The read-only claim merely restates readOnlyHint=true and earns no credit. The genuinely additive part is the explicit guarantee that no arbitrary verification command is executed, which is a safety-relevant behavioral constraint an agent could not infer from the annotation alone. It stops short of describing side effects, permissions, or failure behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words and the read-only constraint placed before the caveat. It is efficient, though its terseness borders on underspecification rather than deliberate 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?

With no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description should explain what an 'inspection' returns and what the two identifiers denote. An agent knows it is safe and will not trigger verification, but not what it gets back or how to supply inputs.

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% for two required parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails to explain what env_id or node_id identify or how they relate. Neither parameter is mentioned in the description at all.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Inspect one environment') and adds a scoping qualifier distinguishing it from compute_verify_environment by ruling out the verification command. It does not, however, say what the inspection actually surfaces, so 'inspect' remains somewhat opaque.

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 phrase 'never run its arbitrary verification command' implicitly routes agents to compute_verify_environment for that job, which is real routing guidance. But there is no guidance on when to pick this over compute_inspect_node, compute_list_environments, or compute_doctor, all of which sit in the same inspection family.

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