Fork environment

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

Annotations indicate a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds behavioral nuance by stating 'The original is untouched' and that the fork costs a delta rather than a rebuild, which explains the side-effect profile beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 extremely concise, using two sentences to convey purpose, behavior, and usage rationale. It is front-loaded with the primary action and avoids unnecessary filler, earning each sentence's place.

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 there is no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns or produces, but it does not mention the result (e.g., new environment ID). It also omits prerequisites like the existence of a sealed snapshot. While it covers the cost model and non-destructive nature, it lacks sufficient detail for an agent to know what to expect beyond a side effect.

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 description coverage is 50% since 'environment' lacks a description. The description does not explain the parameters at all; it never clarifies that 'environment' refers to the source identifier or that 'name' is for the new fork. It fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation, leaving the agent without essential semantic guidance.

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 action (fork) and resource (environment) with specific scope: 'Fork an environment from its last sealed snapshot into a new one.' It distinguishes from siblings like create_environment by emphasizing the fork originates from a snapshot and leaves the original untouched, which is a clear differentiator.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'This is how you try several approaches from one prepared state.' It conveys the intended use case, though it does not mention when not to use it or contrast with create_environment directly. Still, the context is clear.

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