env_terminate_all

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a destructive operation ('关闭' means close/terminate) but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is reversible, if it requires specific permissions, what happens to running processes, or error conditions. For a zero-parameter mutation tool, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.

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, direct sentence ('关闭全部已打开环境') with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and appropriately sized for a simple, parameterless tool—every word earns its place.

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 (a destructive, batch operation with no parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'closed' means (e.g., terminated, suspended, archived), potential side effects, or return values. For a mutation tool affecting multiple resources, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so a baseline score of 4 is appropriate—it efficiently states the action without redundant parameter details.

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 clearly states the action ('关闭全部已打开环境' translates to 'close all opened environments') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like env_terminate (singular) by specifying 'all' environments. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with env_purge_cache or env_remove, which might have overlapping cleanup functions.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like env_terminate (for a single environment) or env_purge_cache (for cache cleanup). It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether environments must be in a specific state, or warnings about irreversible effects.

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