Contract Testing: Get Environment

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Retrieve' is fully consistent with those. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as response shape, error behavior, or prerequisites, but it also introduces no contradiction or hidden surprise.

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 core sentence is short, direct, and front-loaded, immediately stating what the tool does. The Parameters section is redundant with the schema, but the overall description remains compact and easy to scan.

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 getter with no output schema, the description is mostly adequate, but 'details' is vague and does not indicate what fields the response will contain. With no output schema to fill that gap, a brief enumeration of the returned properties would make the tool more actionable.

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 input schema documents the only parameter, environmentId, at 100% coverage including the UUID description, so the description's parameter block is pure duplication. No additional semantic meaning, format constraints, or usage nuances are added beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource: 'Retrieve details for a specific environment by UUID,' which clearly identifies the operation and its scope. The 'specific' and 'by UUID' phrasing distinguishes it from a list-style operation, though it does not name any sibling tool explicitly.

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 the right context: use this when you need details for one environment and already have its UUID. However, it does not mention alternatives such as contract-testing_list_environments, nor does it state when not to use the tool, leaving the guidance mostly implicit.

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