Get Environment Pins

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it states the kind of information returned (version, frozen state, origin) and notes the project context requirement. This aligns with the read-only annotation and gives the agent a clearer picture of the tool's behavior without contradicting the structured metadata.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, adds the distinct output fields, and notes the required prerequisite. Every part earns its place without redundancy or filler.

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 covers the purpose, the key output fields, and the project context prerequisite. It does not spell out the return structure or define 'frozen' or 'pin' in more detail, but the schema and sibling context provide enough orientation for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 fully describes specId as 'Public ID (GUID) of the API specification' with 100% coverage, so the parameter meaning is already documented in the schema. The description adds no further parameter-level semantics, which matches the baseline of 3 for fully covered schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('which version each environment currently pins for this spec'), followed by the exact output attributes (frozen status, provenance). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_environments or get_environment_variables, which would be about listing environments or variables rather than pin states.

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 only usage guidance is 'Requires project context,' which communicates a prerequisite but does not explain when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. It does not name any competing tool or exclusion condition, so usage is implied rather than explicitly directed.

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