list_service_envs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. The description says 'list,' which implies a read-only operation with no destructive effects. However, it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the action is reversible, any required permissions, or rate limits. For a simple list operation, a score of 3 is appropriate as it provides minimal transparency.

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 two sentences long, concise, and front-loaded with the primary action. Every word serves a purpose, with no extraneous information. It efficiently communicates the tool's function.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It states what the tool does, what parameter is needed, and how to obtain it. The absence of an output schema means there is no need to describe return values. It covers the essentials for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a description for the UUID parameter: 'UUID of the service to list environment variables for.' The description adds value by stating 'Get this from list_services,' which provides practical guidance on obtaining the parameter. This goes beyond the schema alone, thus earning a score of 4.

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 clearly states 'List all environment variables for a specific service.' The verb 'list' and resource 'environment variables for a service' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'list_application_envs', which serves a similar purpose for applications. The distinction is implied by the service context but not made explicit.

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 includes 'Use this to view current environment configuration,' which gives a basic usage context. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_application_envs' for applications, or 'create_service_env' for modifications. There is no mention of when not to use it or prerequisites beyond the UUID.

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