列出环境

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds valuable context: the config file path, the ability to override via ENVMGR_CONFIG, and the explicit statement that passwords are not returned. These details disclose behavioral traits not captured in annotations, and there is no contradiction.

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 concise and well-structured: the first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides configuration path, return fields, and an important exclusion (passwords). Every sentence adds value, and the content is front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 simple list operation with one optional filter and robust annotations, the description is complete. It specifies the exact returned fields, the configuration path, and the password exclusion, compensating for the lack of an output schema. No missing critical information for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 only parameter 'type' has a complete description in the schema ('按环境类型过滤，不传则返回所有'), providing full coverage. The main description does not discuss the parameter, but since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the verb '列出' (list) with the resource 'environments', and even enumerates the returned fields (name, type, description, SSH status, browser status). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like envmgr_ssh and envmgr_browser, which perform connection actions rather than listing.

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 implies usage for viewing configured environments but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus envmgr_ssh or envmgr_browser. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusion criteria, or specific scenarios, so the guidance remains implicit.

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