env_get

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Read' aligns with this. The description adds the specific set of fields retrieved, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not disclose any side effects, failure modes, or nuances beyond what annotations already convey. It earns a passing score, not more.

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 short and front-loaded with the key fields, but it contains a redundant English/Chinese duplication (the same list is repeated twice). It is efficient but could be half the length, which prevents a top score.

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-parameter read-only getter with no output schema, this description is fully sufficient. It lists all the values returned and carries no prerequisites or edge cases. The annotations supply the safety profile, so nothing an agent needs to call and interpret the result is missing.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage by default. The description cannot add parameter guidance, so the baseline of 4 applies. It correctly implies that no input arguments are needed.

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 uses the verb 'read' (读取) with the specific resource 'environment' and enumerates four concrete fields (background color, ambient color, background map class, active exposure controller). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling setter tools like env_set_background_color and other getters such as render_get_engine or get_language, so an agent understands exactly what data is returned.

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 implicitly conveys its use case (querying current environment settings) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention that env_set_* tools should be used for modifications or that this is a read-only query, although the name and annotations suggest it. Thus the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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