environment_list_published_libraries

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful semantic detail that only published/currently effective libraries are returned, but it does not disclose return format or pagination behavior. This is acceptable for a simple read-only list tool.

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 one concise sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded. It contains no filler, redundant phrasing, or repeated schema information.

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 two-parameter, read-only list tool, the description plus annotations provide the core information needed to invoke it correctly. Minor gaps include the lack of explicit alternative routing to environment_list_staging_libraries and no mention of the return shape, but neither is critical for this simple operation.

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 fully documents both parameters (workspaceId and environmentId) with 100% coverage, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but it does not need to because the schema already carries that information.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('published (currently effective) libraries'), and a clear scope ('for an environment'). The qualifier 'currently effective' distinguishes it from the staging-library sibling (environment_list_staging_libraries), so an agent can tell this tool apart without inspecting 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?

The phrase 'currently effective' implies this is the right tool when the agent wants the published libraries rather than staging libraries, but the description does not explicitly name the alternative or state when not to use it. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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