list_environments

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the data source (Isaac Sim asset server) and scope (warehouses, offices, outdoor scenes), and 'List' implies a non-mutating query. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, network/server prerequisites, or side effects.

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 sentences with no waste: the first states the core function, the second gives helpful examples of environment categories. The most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values are documented separately. For a simple listing tool with no required parameters, the description is largely sufficient; it could have added a note about optional params or a read-only guarantee, but those are minor gaps.

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 0%, so the description was expected to compensate for the two undocumented parameters. It provides no information about command_id or idempotency_key, leaving their purpose to be inferred from their self-explanatory names. The parameters are optional and generic, limiting the harm, but the description adds no semantic value.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all available environments discovered from the Isaac Sim asset server'), with concrete examples of environment types. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like load_environment or list_available_robots.

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 clearly implies the purpose—use this when you need to see available environments from the asset server—but it does not name alternatives or exclusions. No guidance is given on when not to use it or when to prefer load_environment or other list tools.

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