list_environments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'List' verb is consistent. Additional behavioral details (case-sensitivity, referencing) add value without contradicting annotations. No further behavioral disclosure needed.

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 sentences with no extraneous words. First sentence states purpose, second adds useful detail. The description is front-loaded and efficient.

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 simple, read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains purpose, case-sensitivity, and usage context, sufficient for correct invocation.

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 covers the single parameter with a description (projectKey with default). The description adds no new parameter information beyond reinforcing the context of Jira projects, which is already evident. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's action ('List Zephyr Scale environments') and context ('configured for a Jira project'). It adds details about case-sensitivity and usage in test runs, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_environment.

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 implicitly indicates when to use (to list environments) and provides context (case-sensitivity, reference in test runs). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, which is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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