Get Test Manager Environments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses read-only nature, pagination, filtering, and include_run_count behavior. However, it does not mention rate limits, data freshness, or response size limits, which are relevant for a list tool. Additional behavioral details would improve transparency.

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 three sentences, front-loading the purpose. The first sentence clearly states the action and scope. The second adds cross-reference, and the third provides usage guidance. No wasted words; every sentence 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?

Given the lack of output schema, the description explains the output's key field (environment_id) and its connectivity. It covers all parameters and provides usage guidance. However, it could mention that no parameters are required and possibly describe the output structure in more detail.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains each filter parameter (browser, os, platform, resolution), pagination (page, per_page), and include_run_count, and crucially states that environment_id in output is usable in other tools. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 lists environment configurations (browser/OS/device/resolution) at the org level, distinguishing it from sibling tools that operate on test runs, test cases, or projects. The verb 'lists' and resource 'environments' are specific and unambiguous.

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 context: it's read-only, supports pagination and filtering, and advises using filters to avoid paging through large lists. It also explains how the output environment_id connects to other tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, which would strengthen the score.

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