env_fork

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses execution time, disk cost, disposability, the precise semantics of env_revert on this environment, and the SSH credential caveat that affects env_exec. This is unusually thorough and directly informs agent expectations.

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?

Four tightly packed sentences, with the core action front-loaded and every subsequent sentence adding operational value. It covers cost, lifetime, revert semantics, and a critical interaction caveat without waste or repetition.

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 creation tool with six parameters and no annotations, the description is impressively complete. It explains the full lifecycle, failure mode, and alternative driving tools, while the presence of an output schema means return-value details need not be duplicated in prose.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds minimal parameter-specific guidance beyond mentioning the golden image's SSH state, which is relevant to the golden parameter. This meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 opens with a specific action: 'Create a new environment from a golden image and boot it.' It clearly identifies the resource, the source, and the post-creation behavior, which differentiates env_fork from sibling tools like env_create and env_start.

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?

It gives clear context on when to use this tool: when you need an ephemeral environment forked from a golden image and booted. It also provides a specific routing rule for the result: if the golden has no SSH credentials, use env_screenshot, env_type, env_keys, and env_click instead of env_exec. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like env_create, but the context is strong enough.

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