Get environment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds modestly useful context: the return is a wrapper containing the raw response plus an Environment model, and it names the two error types raised. It says nothing about authentication scope, permissions required, or rate limiting beyond what annotations imply.

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?

It is short and front-loaded with the purpose sentence, but the rest is auto-generated Args/Returns/Raises boilerplate, and the **kwargs line is wasted space that describes nothing concrete. Structure is predictable but the content density is low.

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 exposing 125 parameters with no descriptions, no enums, and no output schema, this description is dramatically under-specified—an agent cannot determine which parameters matter or how to scope the request. It does partially compensate by naming the return wrapper and the two required identifiers, but that is far from sufficient for the complexity.

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 schema has 125 loosely-typed, all-optional parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden—and it delivers only the barest example ('e.g., project_id, environment_id') under a catch-all **kwargs. It never explains the role of the ~120 other fields (ref, tier, states, auto_stop_setting, etc.) or their formats, leaving an agent unable to populate them meaningfully. What it does convey—that project_id and environment_id are effectively required—is genuinely valuable given zero required fields in the schema, but it covers a tiny fraction of the surface.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Get details of a specific environment.' An agent can tell this is a single-resource read, distinct from list-style siblings like gitlab_get_environments or protected-environment tools. However, it never names those siblings or clarifies the boundary (e.g., protected vs. plain environments), so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as gitlab_get_environments for listing or gitlab_get_protected_environment for protected variants. The only implicit hint is the Raises section noting project_id/environment_id are needed, which the agent must reverse-engineer into a usage condition.

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