Inspect environment

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

Beyond the read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: running processes do not survive a cold boot while files do. This is exactly the kind of contextual insight that the annotations alone do not provide.

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 compact and well-structured: two sentences front-load the core output details and then add the essential cold-boot behavior. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary restatement.

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 single-parameter, read-only inspection tool, the description is largely sufficient: it names the returned concepts and a key behavioral nuance, and the annotations cover safety and idempotency. It does not describe a concrete output format, but no output schema is present.

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 exposes one undocumented string parameter, 'environment', and schema description coverage is 0%. The description clarifies that the tool operates on an environment's resumption state, but it does not explain how to obtain or format the environment identifier, e.g. whether it is an ID or name from list_environments.

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 identifies what the tool returns: an environment's resumption state, including its head snapshot, log progress, and fork tree. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_environments, create_environment, and delete_environment, which perform different lifecycle operations.

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?

No explicit alternatives are listed, but the description provides clear operational context: every start is a cold boot from the head snapshot, so this tool helps you understand what state an environment will resume with. The absence of explicit when-not-to-use guidance prevents a 5.

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