List environments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that with 'Secret values are hidden,' warning the agent that secret variables will be redacted rather than returned — a behavior it could otherwise misinterpret as missing data. It stops short of describing ordering, pagination, or whether inactive environments are included.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the scope stated first and the redaction caveat immediately after. Nothing redundant with the title or annotations.

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-param read-only listing with no output schema, the definition covers the essentials: what is returned and the one surprising behavior (hidden secrets). It could be marginally stronger by noting whether all environments are returned or whether the list is scoped/filtered, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly avoids inventing parameter discussion.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'List the workspace's environments and their variables.' An agent immediately knows the scope (workspace-level) and payload (environments plus their variables). No sibling tool overlaps with environments, so explicit differentiation isn't needed, but there's also no framing of how this relates to the request/collection tools around it.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent infers it should call this to discover environments before reading or setting variables. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., set_variable), and no prerequisites or follow-up guidance. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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