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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation, and the description adds the prerequisite of project context. However, it does not elaborate on permissions, error conditions, or any other behavioral details beyond what the annotation implies.

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 concise at two sentences, directly stating the tool's function and its relationship to a sibling tool. No unnecessary words or 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?

The description covers the purpose, key outputs, relationship to get_environment_pins, and the requirement for project context. It does not mention output format or pagination details, but for a list operation with a well-understood domain, this is adequately complete.

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 schema already documents all three parameters (take, specId, environmentId) with clear descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds minimal extra context about their purpose, so it meets the baseline but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the tool lists how spec versions reached environments, specifying key attributes (version, environment, rollback status, freeze status). It also distinguishes itself from get_environment_pins, which shows current state, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 a clear usage distinction by contrasting with get_environment_pins ('this is how it got there' vs. 'shows the current state'), and notes that project context is required. It does not mention other potential alternatives, but the guidance given is sufficient for selecting this tool over the closest sibling.

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