list_environments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains pagination semantics (1-based pageToken), enumerates the returned fields, and even specifies follow-up behavior ('ask if it should pull the next page'). This is strong, though it does not mention the pageSize parameter or return ordering.

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 first three sentences efficiently cover purpose, pagination, and return fields. The final two sentences contain agent-facing presentation and pagination prompts that are arguably outside the core tool behavior, making the description slightly less crisp than ideal.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description enumerates the return fields and pagination behavior, so the agent knows what to expect. The main omission is pageSize in prose, but the schema supplies its default and constraints.

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 schema already documents pageToken as a 1-based page number, so the description adds little new parameter meaning. It does not mention pageSize, which is only represented by schema metadata with default/min/max constraints. With 50% schema description coverage, the description only partially compensates for the undocumented pageSize parameter.

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 starts with a specific action and resource ('List all available environments in the workspace'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_environment_details or list_environment_connections, which target different resources or scopes.

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 establishes when to use this tool: when all environments in the workspace are needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the resource-specific language and sibling names make the intended context unambiguous.

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