List conda envs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine fact beyond them: the result spans base plus project-local environments. It says nothing about return shape, ordering, or cost of an open-world query.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and the scope qualifier trailing; every word earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 low-complexity, read-only, zero-required-parameter listing tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient. The only real gap is that no output schema exists, so the agent gets no hint of what a returned environment entry contains.

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% with only two optional parameters (profile, project), each already documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The parenthetical "project-local" loosely hints that the project parameter scopes the listing, but no format or default information is added.

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?

States a specific verb ("List") and resource ("conda environments") plus a scope qualifier ("visible on RIS (base + project-local)"), so the agent knows it enumerates environments rather than inspecting one. It does not name the closest sibling ris_inspect_conda_env, so the plural-vs-singular distinction is left to be inferred from the name.

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: the plural "environments" and scope note suggest this is the discover-everything call versus a per-environment inspection. There is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of when to prefer ris_inspect_conda_env, and no prerequisite guidance.

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