env_map_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds specific subjects inspected but no additional behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, side effects). It provides useful context beyond annotations but does not significantly expand behavioral disclosure.

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?

Single sentence, no waste, immediately front-loaded with purpose. Efficient and clear.

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?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the inspection scope adequately. Annotations provide safety context. Could optionally describe return structure, but not essential given simplicity.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Baseline for 0 params is 4. Description adds meaning by specifying what is inspected, but no parameter details are needed.

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?

Description clearly states purpose: inspect environment maps, listing specific components (scene.environment, scene.background, per-material envMap, IBL). This is a specific verb-resource pair distinct from all sibling tools, none of which cover env maps.

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?

While no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use is stated, the description and name clearly indicate its domain. Among siblings, no other tool inspects env maps, so usage context is implied. Explicit alternatives or exclusions would improve clarity.

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