BearQ: List Environments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description only needs to add non-obvious context. It does so by explaining the output's intended role: supplying valid environment names to test-running tools and revealing the workspace default. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences deliver the core message with no filler. The optional 'Toolset' and 'Parameters' sections are compact and don't repeat schema details excessively. Every sentence in the description earns its place.

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 read-only, idempotent, parameterless listing tool, this description is complete. It states what is listed, how the information should be used, and that the workspace default is included. No output schema exists, but the description's promise of 'valid environment names' and 'workspace default' gives the agent enough to call and interpret the result 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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema is an empty object with 100% coverage, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. The description explicitly states 'Parameters: None,' which is accurate and harmless. The baseline of 4 for parameterless tools applies here.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Lists the environments configured in the workspace.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from the many BearQ test-running and task-management siblings. The added detail about discovering environment names and the workspace default reinforces its unique role.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'Use this to discover valid environment names to pass to the test-running tools, and to identify the workspace default.' This provides clear context and a concrete purpose. It does not list alternatives or state when not to use it, but for a unique zero-parameter listing tool, the guidance is sufficient.

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