list_environments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and an output schema exists, so safety and return shape are covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond the noun phrase — no note on ordering, whether it includes default/library environments, or what 'active' means.

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?

It is very short and front-loaded, but it is an under-specified sentence fragment in a different language than the other descriptions, which may cost an agent clarity. Brevity here reflects a thin description rather than tight writing.

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 zero-parameter read-only lister with annotations and a full output schema, the description is minimally sufficient to identify the resource. It stops short of telling the agent how this pairs with set_environment when it wants to change the active environment.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The fragment does at least scope the returned content (scene environments plus the active one).

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 text "Environnements de la scène et environnement actif" is a noun phrase that largely restates the tool name list_environments rather than stating a verb+resource action. It does hint that the result includes the active environment, which is slightly more than the name alone, but an agent gets no explicit 'lists all environments' framing.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the sibling set_environment, and no stated prerequisites. Only implicit, weak inference (this reads, set_environment writes) links it to alternatives.

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