list_lifecycle_environments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that by default only essential fields are returned, and that the context window is safe for 16 environments. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or disclose any authentication or side effects.

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 reasonably concise with a clear structure: main purpose, context optimization note, parameter descriptions, and field filtering details. It front-loads the purpose. Minor redundancy exists with 'Args:' repeating parameter info from the schema, but overall it is efficient.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no enums, and no output schema, the description provides necessary context: organization_id constraint, default field behavior, and field filtering. It could mention pagination limits or response structure, but it is sufficiently complete for a straightforward listing tool.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that organization_id is required and numeric, that per_page controls result count, and that include_fields supports 'all' or comma-separated values. This is valuable beyond the bare schema.

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 verb (list), resource (lifecycle environments), and scope (for a specific organization in Foreman/Katello). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_lifecycle_environment' by specifying the listing action.

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 explains the required organization_id and its numeric constraint, and mentions field filtering options. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'get_lifecycle_environment' or search tools.

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