List environments (pac)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the underlying mechanism ('Runs pac env list') and the auth dependency on the active pac auth profile, but says nothing about the read-only/non-destructive nature, failure modes when no profile is active, or what the call returns.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The closing sentence repeats the 'active pac auth profile' already established in the first, a minor redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should ideally say what a successful call yields and how the pac profile dependency behaves. It covers the auth angle well but leaves the return shape and edge cases unspecified for a 5-parameter tool.

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 all five parameters (cwd, filter, profile, background, timeoutSeconds) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or behavioral detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 ('Environments visible to the active pac auth profile') and explicitly positions itself against the sibling cs_list_environments. An agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative (cs_list_environments) and the condition that separates them ('which needs a cs_login'), implying this tool is the one to pick when no cs_login is available. The selection rule is clear but left slightly implicit rather than stated as an explicit 'use this when...' instruction.

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