Create environment

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: persistence across calls, optional git cloning, and the return value. This complements annotations like openWorldHint=true (cloning) and readOnlyHint=false (creation). It does not mention resource/credit implications or failure modes, but covers the core behavioral contract well.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the essential function, and no filler. It efficiently communicates persistence, optional cloning, and the return id—every clause earns its 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?

The description covers the essential facts for a creation tool with no output schema: what is created, persistence, optional repo cloning, and the return id. It does not discuss edge cases like clone failures, name conflicts, or costs, but given the moderate complexity and strong schema/annotations, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 100%, so all three parameters (ref, name, repo) are already documented structurally. The description's mention of optional repository cloning adds a small layer of meaning, but it does not enrich parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and clearly identifies the resource ('persistent development environment') with defining traits: a filesystem and processes that survive between calls. It also distinguishes from siblings by noting the returned environment id is used by every other tool, making the tool's role as the foundational creation step unambiguous.

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 implies when to use this tool by stating it returns the environment id used by every other tool, establishing it as the prerequisite step. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., prefer run_command for existing environments), so it falls short of a 5.

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