get_environment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't explicitly confirm it's non-destructive or safe. It mentions returns 'details including restrictions and variables,' giving some output context, but lacks information about authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or pagination. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized at four sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, then details Args and Returns in clear sections. There's minimal waste, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' labels are slightly redundant given the schema context. Overall, it's efficient and easy to parse.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameters well but lacks output details beyond a high-level mention ('Environment details including restrictions and variables'). Without an output schema, more specifics on return structure would be helpful. It's adequate but has clear gaps in behavioral and output context.

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 description adds meaningful context for both parameters in the Args section: 'repo_slug: Repository slug' and 'environment_uuid: Environment UUID (from list_environments).' This clarifies what these parameters represent and where to obtain the UUID. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides only titles ('Repo Slug', 'Environment Uuid') without descriptions. The description compensates adequately but doesn't fully detail format constraints or examples, keeping it at baseline 3.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Get details about a specific deployment environment,' which is a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('deployment environment'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_environments' (which lists multiple) and 'get_repository' (different resource). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions 'environment_uuid (from list_environments)' in the Args section, this is parameter documentation rather than usage guidance. There's no discussion of prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or comparisons to similar tools like 'get_repository' or 'get_project'.

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