env_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses automatic group creation but omits critical behaviors like overwrite behavior if an environment with the same name exists, or the implications of 'PREGUNTA al usuario' (ask the user) which suggests interactivity not suitable for an AI agent.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main verb 'creates'. However, it could be improved by explicitly listing all parameters and clarifying the interactive directive for agent use.

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?

Given the complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete: it misses the 'spec' parameter, does not mention return values, and the 'ASK the user' instruction is problematic for an autonomous agent. Important behavioral details are absent.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it lists three parameters but omits 'spec'. It does not provide additional context for parameter usage beyond what is already in the schema.

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 'creates a new environment' and lists key parameters (name, group, variables). However, it does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'env_set' or 'env_group_create', which are related but different operations.

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 implies usage by mentioning asking for name, group, and variables, and notes automatic group creation. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use 'env_set' for updates or 'env_group_create' for group creation).

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