List environments

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral traits beyond that. It does not disclose pagination behavior, default parameter values, or any nuances of listing environments, providing zero added 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 description is only a fragment, not a complete sentence, and lacks a clear verb or structure. Although extremely short, the terseness is under-specification rather than effective conciseness, and it fails to front-load any actionable information.

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?

With 7 parameters, no output schema, and no mention of return format, pagination, or defaults, the description is grossly inadequate. It provides no guidance on what the agent can expect in response or how to effectively use the tool, making it highly incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 description mentions none of the 7 parameters, and with schema coverage at 71%, parameters like 'name' and 'states' remain undocumented. The description does not compensate for these gaps or reinforce important details like the project_id fallback, so it adds no parameter-level understanding.

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, 'Deployment environments of a project,' is a noun phrase without a verb, so it does not explicitly state that the tool lists or retrieves environments. It provides a resource type but relies on the tool name to imply the action, which is vague and not self-contained.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gitlab_list_deployments. There is no mention of preconditions, filtering scenarios, or when this tool is preferred, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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