jfrog_list_environments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a read operation ('Get a list'), implying non-destructive behavior, but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency, as it doesn't cover key behavioral traits beyond the basic read intent.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. It uses clear language ('Get a list of all environments types... with their details') and includes an example ('e.g. dev, prod, etc.') that adds value without verbosity. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the tool has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks context on behavioral aspects like permissions or output format. For a simple list tool, this might suffice, but without annotations or output schema, it leaves gaps in understanding how to interpret results or handle errors, making it only partially complete.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description does not add parameter information, which is appropriate here. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs, and the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get a list of all environments types (e.g. dev, prod, etc.) in the JFrog platform with their details.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('environments types'), and scope ('in the JFrog platform'), distinguishing it from siblings like jfrog_list_repositories or jfrog_list_projects. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all list tools, such as jfrog_list_builds, though the resource type is distinct.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for usage, such as when environment details are needed versus other list tools. Without such guidance, an agent might struggle to choose between this and other list tools like jfrog_list_repositories or jfrog_list_projects.

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