env_terminate

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 '关闭环境' (terminate environment), which implies a destructive operation but doesn't specify critical details: whether termination is irreversible, what permissions are required, if there are side effects (e.g., data loss), rate limits, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a tool with likely significant consequences.

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 with just two characters ('关闭环境'), which is front-loaded and wastes no words. For a simple verb-noun phrase, this is appropriately sized, though it may be overly terse given the tool's complexity.

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 likely involves destructive operations (termination), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, parameter meanings, return values, or usage context, making it inadequate for safe and effective tool 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%, and the description provides no information about parameters. The input schema has two parameters ('id' and 'number'), but the description doesn't explain what they represent, how they're used (e.g., to identify the environment), or if both are required. With no parameter details in the description, it fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 '关闭环境' (terminate environment) states a basic action but lacks specificity about what 'environment' refers to in this context. It distinguishes from siblings like 'env_create' or 'env_launch' by indicating termination rather than creation or launching, but doesn't clarify what resources are affected or the scope of termination compared to similar tools like 'env_terminate_all'.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., environment must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot terminate running environments), or comparisons to siblings like 'env_terminate_all' (for bulk termination) or 'env_remove' (which might differ in function). The description implies a termination action but offers no contextual usage rules.

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