Get Bruno environment

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does add a useful, non-obvious behavior: 'Variables marked as secrets are always redacted.' However, it does not disclose other important traits such as read-only/no-side-effect behavior, not-found/error responses, or whether the full variable list is returned.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action and target, and the second adds an important caveat about secrets. It is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 simple tool with two well-documented parameters and no nested schema, the description plus schema is sufficient for correct invocation. The redaction behavior is a key context detail. The main gaps are unspecified return format and failure behavior, but the low complexity makes those minor.

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 already covers both parameters at 100%, including detailed explanations of collection path conventions and environment reference forms. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Inspect a Bruno environment.' It clearly identifies a single-environment inspection action, and the redaction note implies the output contains variables. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like bruno_list_environments, but the singular 'environment' and title make the purpose reasonably clear.

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?

Usage context is only implied: an agent would infer this is for inspecting one Bruno environment rather than listing all environments. There is no explicit statement of when to use this vs. alternatives such as bruno_list_environments or when not to use it, so the guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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