List environments (admin)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the underlying command ('pac admin list'), the dependency on the active pac auth profile, and the read-only listing nature. It does not discuss failure modes or auth prerequisites, but it provides meaningful behavioral context.

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 with no filler. It front-loads scope and output fields, then mentions filters and the underlying command, with every clause contributing useful 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?

For a read-only list command with a fully documented schema, the description covers the essential semantics and names return fields. It lacks explicit routing guidance against cs_list_environments and does not describe output format details, but it is otherwise complete enough for an agent to 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description summarizes filters and the underlying command, but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already documents for each parameter.

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), resource (environments), scope (every environment in the tenant), and the output fields (type, region, state). It also distinguishes the tool from the non-admin sibling cs_list_environments by explicitly saying 'as the admin centre lists them'.

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 gives clear context: this is for tenant-wide admin listing, using the active pac auth profile. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the admin-centre framing makes the intended use case clear.

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