getEnvironment

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating this is a safe, non-destructive read operation. The description doesn't contradict these annotations, but it adds minimal behavioral context beyond them—it doesn't specify what 'information' includes (e.g., metadata, variables, status) or any constraints like rate limits. However, with annotations covering key safety aspects, the description's addition is limited but not misleading, earning a baseline score for not contradicting structured data.

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, straightforward sentence ('Gets information about an environment.') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the core action, though it could be slightly more specific without losing conciseness. There's no unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and rich annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema, it fails to explain what 'information' is returned (e.g., a JSON object with fields like name, variables, status). This gap leaves the agent uncertain about the response format, reducing completeness for effective tool use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'environmentId' documented as 'The environment's ID.' The description adds no further meaning about this parameter, such as format examples (e.g., UUID), sourcing instructions, or validation rules. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting without additional value from the description.

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 'Gets information about an environment' clearly states the verb ('Gets') and resource ('environment'), making the purpose understandable. However, it's vague about what specific information is retrieved (e.g., configuration, status, variables) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'getEnvironments' (plural) or 'getWorkspace', which might retrieve similar resource types. This leaves room for ambiguity in tool selection.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an environment ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'getEnvironments' (which might list multiple environments) or 'getWorkspace' (which might handle a different resource type). This lack of context could lead to incorrect tool invocation in complex scenarios.

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