compute.list_environments

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, so the description should add what is actually done. It hints at status categories but never says what happens when node_id is omitted (its default is null) — whether that lists all nodes or re-scopes entirely — which is the key behavioral question for this tool.

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?

It is a single short line with no wasted words, which is good, but the slash-separated status list is telegraphic and reads like notes rather than a front-loaded statement of purpose.

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 output schema, the description must convey the return shape, and it only gestures at it via "installed / compatible / verified, missing packages." That is directionally useful but too ambiguous to let an agent know whether it gets per-package statuses, counts, or plain name lists.

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 0% and the single node_id parameter is nullable with a null default, so the description carries the burden. "per node" partially compensates by tying the call to a node scope, but the null-default behavior is left unexplained.

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?

"Inspect declared environments per node" names a resource and an action, but the verb conflicts with the name's "list" and the trailing phrase "installed / compatible / verified, missing packages" is a cryptic status enumeration rather than a clear statement of what is returned. It does not distinguish this from close siblings such as compute_inspect_environment or compute_verify_environment.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no exclusion relative to the many environment siblings (compute_inspect_environment, compute_verify_environment, compute_plan_environment). The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the enumeration step.

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