List Environmentals

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

Annotations already declare it as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful context about paginated response and metadata, which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Three succinct sentences: purpose, usage scenarios, and technical details (pagination, required parameter, API info). No filler, each sentence 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?

Covers the main behaviors (list, paginate, filter) and mentions pagination metadata. Given high schema coverage and no output schema, the description is largely complete, though it could note that results are scoped to a project and optionally by incident_id.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions page, per_page, and project_id but does not add new meaning for individual parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Description clearly states it returns a list of Environmental records for a project and specifies use cases (pagination, finding IDs, filtering). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_environmental_types, though the focus on 'records' vs 'types' is implicit.

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 when to use (pagination, IDs, filtering) but does not mention when not to use or suggest alternatives (e.g., retrieve_environmental for a single item). The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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