get_environment_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It correctly describes the tool as returning information (read-only), but it does not mention any potential limitations, permissions, or side effects. The description is straightforward but lacks deeper behavioral context beyond the output fields.

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 two sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating functionality and providing usage guidance. It is front-loaded, efficient, and contains no redundant information.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies key return fields and the intended use case. However, it could be more complete by mentioning potential error cases or the output format, but the existing information suffices for basic usage.

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%, setting baseline at 3. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters (project_key, environment_key) beyond what the schema already provides. It focuses on output fields instead of input semantics, so no extra value.

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 action ('Get detailed information about an environment') and specifies the returned data (GitHub URL, branch, directory path). It distinguishes well from sibling tools like list_environments (which lists all) and get_drift_details (which returns drift), making the tool's unique purpose evident.

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 provides a clear use case: 'Use this to know where to find and clone the IaC code for remediation.' It implies when to use this tool (for detailed environment info) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. The sibling context helps, but direct exclusions are missing.

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