list_environments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List Environment resources' is a minimal statement that implies a read-only operation but does not explain whether the search is recursive, how path relates to the project root, or what the output format looks like. It is not misleading, but it is under-transparent.

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 three words: 'List Environment resources.' It is front-loaded, contains no filler, and every word is meaningful. Ideal conciseness for a simple list operation.

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 tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema), so the description does not need heavy detail. However, it lacks information about default search scope, return type, or how it differs from list_resources, leaving the agent to infer behavior. Acceptable for a low-complexity tool but with clear gaps.

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 schema provides 100% parameter coverage with 'Subdirectory to search' for the path parameter, so the schema already explains the parameter. The description adds no extra semantic detail about how the path filters results, keeping this at the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource type ('Environment resources'), which clearly distinguishes it from singular tools like read_environment and write-oriented tools like create_environment. However, it does not mention the optional path restriction, leaving some scope ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to choose this tool over siblings such as list_resources or read_environment. The only usage hint (path being a subdirectory) is in the schema, not the description, so the agent receives no behavioral or selection guidance.

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