vela_list_envs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the API endpoint and the fact that associated delivery targets are included in the response, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences (one describing the action, one listing the API). It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary words.

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 list operation with strong annotations and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, the API mapping, and the extra detail about associated delivery targets. It does not explicitly mention pagination or project filtering, but these are documented in the schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for typical use.

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 does not explain any of the parameters. Schema description coverage is only 25% (only project_name has a description). Page, page_size, and response_format lack descriptions, and the tool description does not compensate for this gap. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the coverage is too low.

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 lists environments and their associated delivery targets, using a specific verb (list) and resource (envs). It also provides the API endpoint, which further clarifies the exact purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like vela_list_targets.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of filtering, prerequisites, or exclusions. It simply states what it does without contextualizing use cases or referencing similar list tools.

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