env_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a read operation ('获取' - get), implying it's likely safe and non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the environment doesn't exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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?

Extremely concise with a single phrase ('获取单个环境详情'), front-loaded and zero waste. Every word earns its place by stating the core purpose without fluff.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or how to identify the environment (via id or number). For a tool in a complex environment management system, this leaves significant gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions no parameters at all, leaving both 'id' and 'number' undocumented. The description doesn't explain what these parameters mean, their relationship (e.g., use one or the other?), or required formats. Baseline would be 1, but it gets a 2 because the tool name 'env_profile' hints at environment identification.

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 '获取单个环境详情' (Get single environment details) clearly states the verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('环境详情' - environment details). It distinguishes from siblings like env_query (likely queries multiple) and env_create (creates new). However, it doesn't specify what 'details' include, keeping it slightly generic.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like env_query or env_runtime_state. The description implies it's for retrieving details of a specific environment, but doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an environment ID) or exclusions (e.g., not for creating or modifying).

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