Contract Testing: Get Environment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which fully describe the safety profile. The description adds no new behavioral traits beyond confirming it is a retrieval operation. No contradictions, but no added value either.

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 short and structured clearly with sections for purpose, toolset, and parameters. It is mostly concise, though the Parameters section is redundant with the schema. Every sentence serves a purpose, but could be slightly tighter.

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 get operation with one required parameter and rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description is mostly complete. However, it does not mention the return format or contents of the response, which could be helpful given there is no output schema. It adequately covers the basic retrieval function.

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 100% with a clear parameter description. The description repeats the parameter info ('environmentId (string) *required*: UUID of the environment') and adds a toolset header, but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate when schema covers fully.

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 'Retrieve details for a specific environment by UUID', using a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('environment'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_environments' (which returns all) and mutation tools like 'create_environment'.

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 provides minimal guidance: it implies use when you have a UUID and need details. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives (e.g., 'use list_environments for all environments, use update_environment to modify'). Given the toolset header, some context is present, but not explicit.

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