List environments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. The verb 'List' clearly indicates a read-only operationaine, and 'the signed-in user can access' defines the authorization scope. It also discloses the API source and a return attribute, but does not mention pagination, exact response fields, or failure behavior.

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?

This is a single, front-loaded sentence that covers the verb, resource, scope, API, and a relevant output detail without filler. It does not repeat what the schema already documents, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 simple list operation with only two optional parameters Progress, the description gives enough context to invoke it correctly: what is listed, whose perspective it uses, the API, and a key part of the output. With no output schema, exact response item fields are not specified, but this omission is minor for a straightforward list 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%, and the input schema already explains clientId and tenantId including their fallback defaults. The tool description does not need to add parameter-level detail, and its brief mention of 'signed-in user' provides only light contextual color beyond the schema.

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 states the action 'List', the resource 'Power Platform environments', and the scope 'the signed-in user can access', which makes its purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from admin-level environment list tools in the sibling set such as cs_admin_list_environments. The mention of 'BAP API' and 'with Dataverse URLs' adds useful precision without blurring the resource.

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 implies the use case: list environments available to the signed-in user, which contrasts with admin-wide listings. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so the agent must infer the boundary against siblings like cs_admin_list_environments and cs_env_list.

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