list_environments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the default workspace behavior, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, sorting, or return format. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 perfectly concise with two clear sentences. The first states the core purpose, the second explains the optional parameter's default behavior. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or wasted text.

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 tool with one optional parameter and 100% schema coverage, the description covers the basic purpose and default behavior adequately. However, without annotations or output schema, it lacks information about authentication, rate limits, pagination, and return format that would be helpful for complete understanding.

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 the single parameter 'workspace' fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the default behavior when workspace is unspecified, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about workspace IDs or filtering options. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('environments'), specifying scope ('all environments in a workspace'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_environment' (singular) and 'list_workspaces' (different resource), but doesn't explicitly contrast with similar list tools like 'list_collections' or 'list_apis'.

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 context by specifying the default workspace behavior ('If workspace not specified, lists environments in "My Workspace"'), but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_environment' (for a single environment) or other list tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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