env_list

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses ordering behavior ('Standard tiers ... pinned first, then named environments') and a failure mode ('Fails loud if the landscape control file fails its integrity check'). This adds useful behavioral context that the annotation alone does not provide.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then lists specific output fields, followed by ordering and failure behavior. Each sentence carries relevant operational detail, though the list of fields is slightly long; overall it is appropriately concise.

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?

The output fields, ordering, and failure behavior are well covered, and the readOnlyHint annotation handles safety. However, the required workspaceId parameter is left completely unexplained, creating ambiguity about whether the tool lists environments for a specific workspace or across the entire landscape. This is a notable completeness gap.

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?

With one required parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden for explaining workspaceId, but it never mentions the parameter, its role, format, or how it relates to the 'landscape'. The description adds no meaning to the input schema beyond its existing name.

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 verb, resource, and scope: 'List every TILL environment in the landscape'. It then enumerates the exact fields returned, which makes the tool's purpose concrete and distinguishable from siblings like env_current or env_status.

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 implies its usage through 'List every TILL environment', but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over env_current, env_status, or other environment-related siblings. No when-not guidance or alternative routing is provided, so usage is inferred rather than stated.

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