list_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 mentions the tool lists environments but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only (implied by 'List' but not explicit), pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. The description is minimal and lacks crucial operational context.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose followed by parameter and return details in a structured format. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more detailed without losing conciseness.

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 complexity (a simple list operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and return type, but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines, making it adequate but with clear gaps for effective tool selection.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining 'repo_slug' as 'Repository slug' and 'limit' with its default value, which clarifies beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't detail parameter formats (e.g., what a 'repo_slug' looks like) or constraints, leaving some ambiguity.

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') and resource ('deployment environments for a repository'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_environment' (singular) or 'list_deployment_history', which might be related but serve different purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention when to choose 'list_environments' over 'get_environment' (which fetches a single environment) or 'list_deployment_history' (which might include environment-related data). The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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