Get Environments

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get', implying a read operation, but fails to specify return format, pagination behavior, or whether it requires authentication. No detail on what happens if parameters conflict (e.g., environmentId vs name).

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 extremely short but not concise—it is under-specified. Every word should earn its place, but here 'from env0' is redundant. The description fails to convey essential 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?

Given five parameters (at least one likely required per logic, though none marked required) and no output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how pagination works, or the meaning of the response. The tool's purpose is unclear, making it difficult for an AI agent to invoke correctly.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds no value beyond the schema; it does not explain how parameters interact (e.g., environmentId overrides others). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get the environments from env0' is vague and essentially restates the tool name. It does not clarify what 'environments' refers to in the context of env0 (e.g., deployment environments, cloud configurations) and fails to distinguish this tool from sibling tools like get-cloud-configurations or get-projects.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. There is no mention of scenarios (e.g., listing environments for a project), prerequisites (e.g., projectId may be needed), or situations where this tool should not be used.

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