describe_environment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Describe' strongly implies a read-only, discovery operation, but the description never states that it is side-effect free, whether it is expensive/cached, or how fresh the topology data is. It adds the useful 'call first' ordering hint, which is more than the schema provides, but leaves the core behavioral profile implicit.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded: the first states what it returns, the second states when to call it. No filler or repetition.

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 with no parameters the input side is trivially complete. The only remaining gap is the unstated read-only/cost profile, which a zero-argument discovery tool could reasonably be expected to declare.

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 clarify and the baseline is 4. The mention of 'addresses, VMs or tables' refers to discoverable content, not inputs, so it does not mislead about arguments.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: it describes the network topology and the available log tables, which is clearly distinct in kind from the sibling search_/trace_/lookup_ tools. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: 'Call this first when you are unsure which addresses, VMs or tables exist.' That is a concrete when-to-use condition, but there is no stated when-not-to-use or explicit pointer to which sibling to call once the environment is known.

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