Dump function env

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new context: 'Requires: active-client', 'cost=medium', and 'Produces: structured-observation'. It does repeat the read-only/idempotent profile ('idempotency=read-only', 'Safety: read-only'), which is redundant but not contradictory.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good, but the remaining metadata block wastes space on duplicated facts ('idempotency=read-only' and 'Safety: read-only' say the same thing, both echoing the annotations). Field/value pairs are terse but the redundancy costs it.

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?

No output schema exists, and 'Produces: structured-observation' is only a vague gesture at return shape. Still, for a read-only, annotation-covered tool the description supplies the key operational facts (precondition, cost, phase), so an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 schema already documents all three parameters with defaults and constraints. The description's restated signature ('limit: any?') is actually less precise than the schema's 'number' typing and adds no new semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb pair and resource: 'Find function by query and inspect environment table keys/values.' An agent can tell this reads a function's environment table. However, it never distinguishes itself from the close sibling 'get-function-env', so the boundary is left to inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative. 'Phase: observe' hints at workflow position but does not tell the agent when this beats get-function-env, get-script-env, or dump-table. The fallback note is about failure handling, not selection.

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