list_environments

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

The description discloses a behavioral trait: environment names follow the host's own vocabulary, not a fixed set. As a listing operation, read-only is implied, but no annotations are available to confirm safety or other behaviors.

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 concise sentences: the first states the primary action and target, the second adds an important qualifier. No redundant details.

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 straightforward single-parameter list operation, the description covers the core purpose and a key caveat. However, with no output schema, it doesn't explicitly describe the return shape, though this is reasonably inferable from 'list environments'.

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 fully documents the single required parameter 'repo' with type and description. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline applies.

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 identifies the action ('List') and the resource ('deployment environments a repository defines'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_deployments by focusing on environments defined by the repo. The added nuance about host-specific vocabulary further clarifies the scope.

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?

It provides context that environment names are host-specific, implying the user should not assume fixed values. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_deployments or get_deployment, though the 'environments' vs 'deployments' distinction offers implicit guidance.

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