list_environments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by explicitly stating that credentials are not returned, which is a security-relevant trait not captured in the structured data.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core function and its most important qualifier. Every word contributes value, and there is no redundancy.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with a present output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It specifies the resource type and the critical credential-privacy behavior, leaving nothing essential unexplained.

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 tool has 0 parameters and the input schema is empty (coverage 100%), so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but none are needed; the 'without returning credentials' note addresses output rather than input.

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') and resource ('saved T3 Code environments'), and adds a key differentiator ('without returning credentials'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_projects and add_environment without needing to open 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 description clearly implies when to use the tool (when you need to list saved environments) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. It is not misleading, but it leaves the selection logic to inference.

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