env_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. '创建环境' reveals nothing about whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on success/failure, rate limits, or side effects. For a complex creation tool with 8 parameters, this complete lack of behavioral context is inadequate.

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?

While technically concise with just two characters, this is under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to communicate essential information about a complex tool, making it inefficient for an AI agent that needs to understand when and how to invoke it. Every sentence should earn its place, but here there's essentially no sentence at all.

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 high complexity (8 parameters with nested objects), zero annotation coverage, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about what an 'environment' represents in this system, what happens after creation, what values are returned, or how this integrates with other tools. The description fails to compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 8 complex parameters (including nested objects for proxy configuration, account info, fingerprint, and advanced settings), the description adds zero semantic information about any parameters. It doesn't mention that 'name', 'groupId', 'remark', 'proxyId', 'accountInfo', 'fingerprint', or 'advancedSetting' are even expected, let alone explain their purposes or relationships.

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 '创建环境' (create environment) is a tautology that restates the tool name 'env_create' without adding specificity. It doesn't clarify what type of environment is being created, what resources are involved, or how this differs from sibling tools like 'group_create' or 'env_revise'. While it contains a verb ('创建'), it lacks meaningful differentiation.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools like 'env_revise' (modify), 'env_remove' (delete), 'group_create' (create group), and 'env_launch' (launch environment), there's no indication of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or distinctions between creation and other operations.

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