Show environment details (pac)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does usefully disclose that the tool runs 'pac env who' using the active pac auth profile, which implies read-only behavior and dependency on an existing profile. However, it does not explicitly state side-effect-free status, failure modes, or what happens when no profile is active.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the output details (org id, URL, version, user) and then gives the underlying command and profile context. 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?

For a simple, read-only query tool with no required parameters and fully documented schema, the description is mostly complete. It states what information is returned and which profile is used. It could be more complete by clarifying when to choose this over sibling environment/auth tools, but that gap is partially covered by purpose clarity and schema richness.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema; it mentions the active auth profile, but this is already documented in the 'profile' parameter. It does not need to compensate for schema gaps because none exist.

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 tool shows environment details (organisation id, URL, version, signed-in user) and names the underlying command 'pac env who'. It is specific about the resource and outcome. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like cs_env_list, cs_env_fetch, or cs_auth_who, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use when environment details are needed, but does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or how it differs from cs_env_list, cs_env_fetch, or cs_env_select. No alternatives are named.

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