List environments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: what is returned (metadata only) and what is deliberately excluded (variable values), which is a real behavioral boundary an agent would otherwise discover only from a failed follow-up call.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler, and the scope limitation is front-loaded before the pointer to the sibling tool. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose explanation, and the single parameter is fully covered by the schema. For a simple read-only list tool, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single optional parameter is fully documented in the schema itself, including the account-key vs OAuth-token semantics. The description adds nothing about the X-Orchestra-Account-Id override, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('environments') plus the scoping constraint ('for the workspace the credential resolves to'), which separates it from unqualified list tools. The second sentence explicitly contrasts it with the get_environment sibling, so an agent can route between the two without opening either schema.

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 tells the agent when to use this tool rather than get_environment: list for metadata, fetch by ID for variable values. It does not state exclusions (e.g., pagination limits or when listing is inappropriate), so it stops short of explicit when-not guidance.

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