get_environment

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, destructive=false, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns 'honest configuration coverage,' hinting that it discloses the degree of config completeness, but it never explains what that coverage means or what the response looks like.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no padding, listing the four reported items up front. The phrase 'honest configuration coverage' is slightly unusual but does not bloat the text.

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 zero-argument, read-only tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the fields returned, which is exactly what an agent needs to decide relevance. The only gap is the undefined notion of 'configuration coverage.'

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4.

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 clear verb ('Report') and enumerates the specific resources returned: Studio runtime, supported version, profiles location, and configuration coverage. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_settings, which an agent could easily confuse with an environment/config report.

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 statement of when to call this versus alternatives like get_settings, list_options, or inspect_project, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage purely from the field list.

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