Get an environment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description goes beyond them by disclosing that variable values are included in the response — meaningful for a tool that may expose secrets/config. It stops short of noting authorization or account-scoping behavior, but adds real value over the annotation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource, identifier, and notable payload detail are all packed in without redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the read-only nature is covered by annotations. The description mentions variable values and the lookup key, which is sufficient for a simple single-fetch tool; only account-scoping nuance is left to the schema.

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 coverage is 50%: the X-Orchestra-Account-Id header is fully documented in the schema, but environment_id carries only a uuid4 format with no description. The phrase 'by its ID' confirms environment_id's role but adds no format or lookup detail beyond the schema.

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 (Fetch) and resource (a single environment) scoped by ID, which implicitly distinguishes it from list_environments. It is clear but never names the sibling it differs from, so an agent must infer the distinction itself.

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?

'By its ID' implies the precondition that an environment_id must be known, which is usable guidance, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to list_environments for discovery. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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