list env tools

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses the feature-flag gating (404 when off), the OWNER/ADMIN requirement even for GET (403), the fact that credentials are encrypted at rest and never returned (only a prefix), the auth_prefix display semantics, name sorting, and the exact HMAC_SHA256 signing scheme. This is rich behavioral context that neither annotations nor the empty schema provide, and it does not contradict the annotations.

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 long but front-loaded: purpose first, then endpoint/scope, a structured Returns block, and Notes on gating, auth, and security. Every sentence carries load-bearing information, though minor overhead like the 'snake_case:' label and dense parentheticals keep it just short of a perfect 5.

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?

With no output schema and zero parameters, the description carries the full burden and succeeds: it specifies the HTTP endpoint, API-key scope, every return field with its semantics, the two primary failure modes (404/403), and the security guarantees. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret the tool is 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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4; there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. The description productively uses the space instead to document the return structure in detail, which is the semantically relevant information for this tool.

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 (Lists) with a precise scope: agent tools declared for training environments (the egress allowlist) plus the per-workspace verification secret. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling register_env_tool and delete_env_tool, and the audit purpose is stated outright.

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?

It explicitly frames the intended use ('use it to audit which endpoints and credentials environments may call'), which gives an agent a clear trigger condition for selecting it. It does not name alternatives or state when-not-to-use conditions, but the audit framing makes the distinction from the register/delete siblings evident.

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