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 states this is a listing operation, implying it's read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't confirm this explicitly. It misses details like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds useful context about environments. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying the tool's scope without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary elaboration.

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 the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and context but lacks details on behavior, usage scenarios, or output format. Without annotations or output schema, the description should do more to compensate, such as hinting at return values or error cases, leaving room for improvement.

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 description doesn't mention any parameters, but the input schema has 100% coverage with a well-documented 'project_uuid' parameter. Since schema_description_coverage is high, the baseline score is 3. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying the relationship between projects and environments, but this doesn't detract from the adequate schema documentation.

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 resource ('all environments in a project'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_project' or 'list_applications' by focusing on environments, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The addition of 'Environments separate different deployment stages...' provides helpful context but doesn't fully differentiate from similar listing tools.

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 usage by mentioning 'project' context and deployment stages, suggesting it's for viewing environment configurations. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_applications' or 'get_project', and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions. The input schema hints at needing 'project_uuid' from 'list_projects', but this isn't stated in the description itself.

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