List environments (admin)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the execution mechanism ('pac admin list' with the active pac auth profile), which implies a safe read. However, it does not state read-only intent explicitly, nor address permissions, pagination, or failure modes, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then filters, then the underlying command. No filler. Slightly less tight than ideal because the command detail is tacked on, but every sentence earns its place.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate: it names the returned fields and the filters. It does not describe the return shape beyond those three fields, nor how results are ordered or paged, and gives no guidance against the adjacent environment-listing tools.

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 schema already documents all 8 parameters, including profile defaults and background/polling behavior. The description only restates the filter set (name, type, installed application) and the profile usage, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Every environment in the tenant') and enumerates the returned fields (type, region, state), plus notes it mirrors the admin centre listing and runs 'pac admin list'. This clearly separates it from non-admin listing siblings. It never names the closest sibling (cs_list_environments or cs_admin_environment_status), so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'as the admin centre lists them' and the note about the admin auth profile suggest the admin scope, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. cs_list_environments for non-admin listing). The agent must infer the routing from the tool name.

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