create_environment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'provision' implying creation but does not disclose any side effects, permissions, limits, or cleanup behavior. The description lacks behavioral details beyond basic creation persistence.

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 well-structured with a clear opening, contrast paragraph, and bullet-like list for arguments. It is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose, though the parameter list is minimal.

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 explains the tool's role relative to create_interaction, but with 3 optional parameters and an output schema (not shown), it omits details about return values and behavior. It is adequate but not fully complete given the complexity.

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 only references 'See build_environment_config' for three parameters. This adds minimal direct semantics; the agent must look up another tool's schema. No parameter-specific meaning is given beyond the reference.

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 'Provision a standalone sandbox environment' and clearly distinguishes this tool from using inline environment config in create_interaction. It establishes reuse across interactions, differentiating it from siblings like create_interaction.

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 explicitly contrasts two approaches: using this tool for persistence vs. passing inline config to create_interaction (which forks per invocation). It tells the agent when to use which, including the alternative function name.

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