env_use

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It mentions activating a venv but does not disclose side effects (e.g., deactivation of current venv), failure conditions (e.g., missing path), or state changes. Basic activation behavior is implied but not fully transparent.

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 a single, clearly worded sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action. However, the extreme brevity sacrifices necessary detail, making it less effective than a slightly longer but more informative description.

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?

With an output schema present, return value documentation is handled. However, the description lacks information about the parameter, prerequisites (existing venv), and behavioral context relative to sibling tools. For a simple tool, it is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.

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 0%, and the description does not mention the single parameter 'path'. While the schema provides a default value and title, the description adds no semantic context about the path's role (e.g., location of the venv). This is a critical gap for tool usage.

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 tool uses an existing venv and sets it active, distinguishing it from env_create (creates a venv) and workspace_use (uses a workspace). However, the verb 'use' is somewhat vague, and 'set it active' could be more precise.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like env_create or pip. The description implies it's for an existing venv, but fails to mention prerequisites (e.g., venv must already exist) or scenarios where alternatives are better.

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