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 burden. It adds meaningful behavioral context by naming the exact command run ('pac env list') and the scope (profile-visible environments), which strongly implies a read-only list operation. However, it does not explicitly state that no side effects occur, what happens if no profile is active, or what failure modes exist. The concrete command reference further increases value to 4.

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 sentences with no filler: purpose, alternative, and underlying command are all present and front-loaded. Every sentence contributes a distinct piece of information an agent needs, and nothing is redundant or wasted.

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 tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose, scoping, and auth context. It leaves no critical call-time decision uncovered; an agent would need to know what the result looks like but 'List environments' strongly implies the result type, and the underlying pac command is well-known. Slightly more detail on output format would make it fully complete, but is not a blocker.

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%, and the description itself provides no additional negotiation detail. The description's mention of the 'active pac auth profile' is already present in the parameter descriptions. Thus the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline without exceeding it.

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 a list operation over the 'environments' resource, scoped to the active pac auth profile. It differentiates itself from cs_list_environments by explicitly naming that alternative and the reason (cs_login requirement), so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 explicitly names cs_list_environments as the alternative and identifies the deciding condition (needs a cs_login), making the when-to-use clear. It does not mention or exclude the other sibling, cs_admin_list_environments, but the 'active pac auth profile' scope and non-admin grouping of the tool suggest a reasonable distinction.

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