list_environment_scopes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety/behavior profile is fully covered by structured fields. The description adds one genuine value: 'Requires the caller OAuth token', an auth prerequisite not encoded in annotations. It says nothing about pagination or result ordering, so it clears the (lower) annotated baseline without being rich.

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?

Three short sentences, each load-bearing: purpose, alternative for creation, disambiguation from roles, plus auth requirement. Front-loaded with the primary action and no 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 single-param, read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: exact scope, the sibling it must not be confused with, the creation alternative, and the auth requirement.

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 environmentId parameter is fully documented in the schema (format, pattern). The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is appropriate at baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (permission scopes) scoped to one environment. It explicitly disambiguates from the closely-named sibling list_environment_roles ('This tool does not list roles. Use list_environment_roles for those.'), which is exactly the confusion an agent is most likely to hit.

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?

Provides explicit routing: use create_environment_scope to add a scope, and use list_environment_roles to get roles. This covers the two most likely alternative intents. It does not explicitly state when-not to use this tool in general (e.g., cross-environment listing), but the context is unambiguous.

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