env_list

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden alone. It discloses the scoping constraint (active project) but not whether the call fails without an active project, whether it's a cheap read, or what each listed environment contains. For a zero-parameter read this is acceptable but thin.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the scoping qualifier is included without padding. Nothing wasted.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should say at least roughly what is returned (environment names, IDs) and how it behaves when no project is active. It covers scope only, leaving the agent to discover the rest by calling.

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 the schema is trivially complete (100% coverage) and the description correctly introduces no parameter claims. No credit is possible beyond baseline.

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?

Specific verb plus resource with scope: 'List all environments configured under the active project.' An agent can distinguish it from env_list_variables (variables inside an environment) and project_list, though the description never explicitly names those distinctions.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'under the active project' – an agent can infer a project must be active, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use, no mention of env_get or env_list_variables as follow-up alternatives, and no exclusion conditions.

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