list_environments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly indicates a read-only 'list' operation, which is non-destructive. While it does not detail authentication requirements or return formats, the simplicity of the operation makes the description sufficient.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It directly states the purpose and scope, earning a top score.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, simple list operation), the description fully covers the essential context. An output schema exists, so return value details are not needed. The description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The description correctly implies that no parameters are needed, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty).

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 the tool's function: listing authentication profiles (Dataverse environments) configured in the pac CLI. It uses a specific verb ('List') and a resource, and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like select_environment, which performs a different action.

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 provides clear context that this tool lists configured authentication profiles, which implies it is the appropriate choice when you need to view available environments. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the purpose is self-evident and differentiates from sibling tools.

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