env_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it's a paginated query. It doesn't disclose whether this is read-only (implied but not stated), what authentication is needed, rate limits, what happens with invalid parameters, or the format of returned data. For a query tool with 9 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise (4 Chinese characters) and front-loaded with the core functionality. While efficient, it may be too brief given the tool's complexity. Every word earns its place, but more context might be warranted.

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 has 9 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the query's purpose beyond basic pagination, parameter usage, or how results are structured, leaving the agent with inadequate context for proper tool selection and invocation.

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 but provides no parameter information. With 9 parameters (page, size, id, number, groupId, name, remark, proxyId, platform), the description doesn't explain what these filter fields mean, their relationships, or how they affect the paginated query results.

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 '分页查询环境列表' (Paginated query of environment list) states the verb (query) and resource (environment list) with pagination scope, which is adequate. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'env_query' vs 'group_query' or 'proxy_query', leaving ambiguity about what specifically distinguishes this environment query from other query tools.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'env_profile', 'env_runtime_state', and 'env_opened' that might provide different environment-related data, the description lacks context about when this paginated list query is appropriate versus more specific environment tools.

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