list_environments_for_application

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It accurately conveys that this is a read-style operation ('Get all environments') and that the output matters for environment IDs. It does not disclose details such as pagination, ordering, error behavior, or whether the list is filtered in any way, but the simple read-only nature is reasonably transparent for a 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 two sentences and every word earns its place. It front-loads the core purpose first, then gives the essential workflow rule. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 one-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool returns ('environment IDs'), and when it should be called in the broader flow. The lack of annotations and output schema means a little more behavioral detail could have been added, but nothing critical appears missing.

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%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'application' parameter. The description itself does not need to repeat parameter details. The schema's DO NOT use application names - use IDs only instruction is strong guidance for calling the tool correctly.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get all environments configured for an application.' It also relates to the deployment workflow by mentioning that it provides environment IDs before deploying. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling list tools like list_environment_inventory, relying mostly on the tool name and sequential context.

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 gives explicit usage context: ALWAYS call after list_applications to get environment IDs before deploying. This tells the agent when in the workflow this tool should be used. It does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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