env_runtime_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('获取' - get) without revealing any traits like read-only vs. mutative nature, permission requirements, rate limits, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with parameters and no output schema, failing to inform the agent of operational behavior.

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 a single, efficient phrase ('获取环境运行状态') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured for its brevity.

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 complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'runtime state' includes, how parameters are used, or what the tool returns, leaving critical gaps for the agent to understand and use the tool effectively in context with siblings.

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 description adds no meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage (no descriptions for 'id' or 'number'). With two parameters undocumented in both schema and description, the agent lacks essential context on what these parameters represent (e.g., environment ID, instance number) or how they affect the tool's function, severely hindering correct invocation.

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 '获取环境运行状态' (Get environment runtime state) states a clear verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('环境运行状态' - environment runtime state), establishing basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'runtime state' entails (e.g., metrics, status, health) and does not differentiate from siblings like 'env_query' or 'health_check', making it vague in context.

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 such as 'env_query' (which might query environment details) or 'health_check' (which might check system health). The description implies usage for monitoring but offers no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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