List environments

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

Annotations already express readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds behavioral context by scoping to the current account and revealing that fork counts are included in the response. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'List' and immediately identifies the resource and output. Every word adds value; there is no unnecessary detail.

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 that the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, this description fully covers the core invocation and expected result. An agent has enough information to correctly select and call this 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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to define parameter meanings because there are none to clarify.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and states the exact resource ('this account's environments') plus a meaningful differentiator ('with how many forks each has'). This clearly distinguishes it from get_environment, which focuses on a singular 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?

The description implies when to use this tool—when you need an account-level summary of environments and their fork counts—but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over get_environment or list other alternatives. It provides clear context but no exclusionary guidance.

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