env_map_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; repeating 'Read-only' adds little. The valuable addition is scoping what data is exposed (scene.environment, scene.background, per-material envMap), though no return shape, cost, or auth context is given.

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?

Extremely short and front-loaded: a bracketed tag, a read-only marker, and a compact list of what is inspected. No filler, though the telegraphic phrasing reads more like a label than a sentence.

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 zero parameters, the description carries the burden of saying what comes back, and it does name the three inspection targets. A little more on scope (whole scene vs. selected material) would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document beyond the schema; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument global inspection rather than suggesting missing filters.

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?

States a clear inspect action on a specific resource: environment maps, naming scene.environment, scene.background and per-material envMap. It does not, however, differentiate itself from overlapping siblings like scene_background or material_details, so an agent cannot fully disambiguate without opening schemas.

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 '[INSPECT] Read-only' tag implies a read/inspection context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of how it relates to siblings such as scene_background or material_details. An agent is left to infer the appropriate scenario.

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