code_env

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that get returns package summaries and that full=true changes the output to full package lists, but it does not describe list's behavior, output format, or whether operations are read-only. The 'set full=true' instruction implies a parameter not present in the schema, adding subtle confusion.

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 concise, with two sentences that convey the core operations and a key detail about get. It is front-loaded with the operation list, and no words are wasted.

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 tool lacks both an output schema and annotations, so the description should fully explain return behavior and operation semantics. It covers get's return behavior but omits list entirely, and the empty input schema means the full=true instruction lacks a matching parameter definition, leaving the tool under-specified.

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 is empty, so the description is not required to elaborate on parameters. The mention of 'set full=true' is extra context, but given the 0-parameter baseline, the description adds value by explaining a potential toggle even though it isn't officially parameterized.

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 identifies the tool as handling code environment operations (list and get), which distinguishes it from sibling resource tools. However, it lacks a clear verb+resource structure (e.g., 'List code environments') and reads more like a category label than a specific action.

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 offers a brief usage tip for get (full=true for full package lists) but does not explain when to use list versus get or when to prefer code_env over sibling tools. There is no explicit guidance on alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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