Contract Testing: List Environments

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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds a mild scoping statement ('all environments configured in ... workspace') but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, response format, ordering, or any workspace-specific constraints. The bar is lower with annotations, but this description contributes only marginal 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 purpose sentence is clear and front-loaded, but the subsequent 'Parameters' section duplicates the schema descriptions, and the 'Toolset' line is low-value filler. The description is short, but not every element 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?

This is a simple two-parameter read-only operation with complete annotation coverage and fully documented parameters, so the definition is mostly sufficient. The main gap is the lack of return-value or pagination details, especially given there is no output schema, but the operation is straightforward enough that an agent can correctly invoke it from the provided information.

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%; both pageNumber and pageSize already carry descriptions and defaults in the input schema. The 'Parameters' section in the description simply restates those schema details, adding no new meaning or guidance such as maximum page size or pagination behavior.

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's opening sentence 'Retrieve all environments configured in the Pact Broker or PactFlow workspace' uses a specific verb and resource, with a clear scope. The plural 'all environments' distinguishes it from the singular sibling contract-testing_get_environment, and the Pact Broker/PactFlow scope separates it from bearq_list_environments.

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 provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternative tool routing. The 'Toolset: Environments and Deployments' heading is merely a category label, not a selection criterion. An agent choosing between contract-testing_list_environments, contract-testing_get_environment, and bearq_list_environments receives no help in deciding which to call.

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