Fork environment

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) only partially cover behavior; the description adds crucial detail that the original environment is untouched and explains the delta-based cost. This goes beyond the annotations by specifying what is not modified and the resource implication, enhancing transparency.

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?

Two succinct sentences: the first states the core action, the second explains the purpose and cost. No redundant phrasing, perfectly front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place. Ideal conciseness.

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 simple tool with 2 params, no output schema, and partial annotations, the description adequately covers functionality, usage context, and non-destructive behavior. It does not mention the return value, but that is not critical given the lack of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation. Overall, complete enough for an agent.

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 coverage is 50% (only 'name' has a description). The description does not add extra meaning to the 'environment' parameter beyond the implied source, and 'name' is already described as 'Name for the fork.' Since coverage is moderate, the description adds minimal value beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the action (fork an environment from its last sealed snapshot into a new one) and differentiates from siblings by emphasizing the 'original is untouched' and the purpose of trying multiple approaches. The verb 'fork' is specific and the resource (environment) is explicit, with a clear scope (last sealed snapshot).

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?

Provides clear context for use ('try several approaches from one prepared state') and hints at cost advantages ('costs a delta, not a rebuild'), but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. Still, the rationale is sufficiently clear for an agent to decide.

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