List environments for a company

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the HTTP method (GET) and the authorization class ('board_or_agent'), which go beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, result limits, or any side effects (though none are expected). The added context is useful but not extensive.

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 very concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the purpose and include the key HTTP operation and auth info. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is slightly short but acceptably so for a straightforward list tool.

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 that the tool has only one parameter and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and provides the auth class, but it does not describe the output format or content. It also does not mention that the companyId is required or how to obtain it. For a list tool, more context about result scope or potential emptiness would be helpful.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. The only parameter, path.companyId, is not explained in the description. While the name is somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not elaborate on its format, how to obtain it, or its role in identifying the company. This leaves a semantic gap.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'environments for a company'. It also provides the HTTP method and path, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate among sibling tools that also operate on company environments (e.g., pc_post_companies_by_company_id_environments or pc_get_companies_by_company_id_environments_capabilities), so it lacks sibling distinction.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that to retrieve a specific environment one should use pc_get_environments_by_id, nor does it offer any exclusions or preferred contexts. The only additional info is the authorization class, which is not decision guidance.

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