List available test points

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, establishing the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it describes the output structure (grouped by type with id/name/status) and explains the effect of the optional environment_id parameter ('include test points already assigned to that environment'). This goes beyond the annotations to disclose what the response contains and how the parameter modifies the result.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that front-load the main result, then provide usage guidance and parameter behavior. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema details. It is well-structured for quick comprehension by an agent.

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?

This is a simple list tool with no required parameters and no output schema. The description adequately covers the return shape (grouping and fields) and the optional parameter behavior. It also situates the tool in a broader workflow ('when assigning test points in create or update environment requests'), making it sufficiently complete for the agent to select and invoke 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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, with the description already stating 'Optional — pass to include test points already assigned to that env.' The tool description reinforces this but does not add additional semantic value beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description confirms the parameter's role but does not introduce new meaning.

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 'Returns test points grouped by type (agents, mailboxes, sites) with id/name/status.' This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like cymulate_env_list (which lists environments) and cymulate_env_get (which retrieves a single environment). The grouping and fields are explicitly named, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use these values when assigning test points in create or update environment requests.' This tells the agent exactly when this tool is relevant. However, it does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, but given the sibling set and the tool's unique purpose, clear context is provided without needing explicit when-not-to-use.

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