list_environments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description does not need to reiterate those. It adds value by explaining availability probes are optional and bounded to the current page, which is a behavioral detail not present in annotations. This complements the safety profile.

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 short sentences with no redundancy. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the additional probe note is directly relevant. Every word 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 list tool with annotations covering safety, the description is adequate but not complete. It fails to mention that limit and offset are pagination controls, and with no output schema, an agent may be unsure about return structure. The page-bounded probe detail helps, but more could be said.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for all parameters. It only addresses checkAvailability indirectly via 'availability probes', leaving limit and offset completely unexplained. An agent would not know their purpose or how they control pagination from the description alone.

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 the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('machines') and scope ('linked to the signed-in T3 account'), which distinguishes it from sibling list_projects. It also adds a clarifying note about availability probes, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 implies usage for listing machines but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like list_projects. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided, though the note about optional availability probes gives some usage context.

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