list_organization_environments

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

Annotations already mark the operation read-only and idempotent; the description adds useful non-annotated context by defining the data source ('organization's events') and the required permission scope. It does not discuss return format or pagination, but those are covered in the parameter schema, and nothing contradicts the annotations.

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 short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and a concise scope note; every sentence adds distinct information and there is no filler.

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 simple read-only list tool with 5 optional, fully-documented parameters and rich annotations, the description plus schema cover what the agent needs: what is listed, the auth scope, and all call options. Output shape is implied by 'environment names' and the format parameter, so no critical information 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (limit, cursor, format, visibility, organization) already has detailed semantics including defaults, enums, and patterns. The description adds no parameter-level information, matching the baseline of 3.

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?

Description uses a specific verb and resource ('List environment names used in an organization's events') and gives concrete examples (production, staging). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like list_organizations and get_organization, which operate on organizations rather than their environments.

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 clear context: it is for listing environment names within an organization's events and states the required scope (org:read, org:write or org:admin). It does not explicitly name alternative siblings for when-not-to-use, but the context is unambiguous and there are no exclusions.

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