List API Environments

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

The description discloses the masking behavior for sensitive variable values and confirms non-sensitive values like base URLs are shown, which is critical context beyond the annotations. This complements the readOnlyHint:true and destructiveHint:false annotations by explaining the safe, read-only nature of the tool and its variable-inspection semantics.

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, zero fluff. The first sentence establishes purpose and scope while acknowledging the umbrella architecture, and the second adds critical security/behavioral context in a compact way. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only tool with 1 optional parameter and strong annotations, the description covers the essentials: what it does, what it returns (including masking behavior), and scope. It doesn't need to over-explain return structure since output schema exists, and the brief did not require listing sibling alternatives explicitly.

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 coverage is 100% (single optional workspaceId), and the description adds behavioral nuance by clarifying the parameter controls workspace selection — though it doesn't explicitly call out the fallback behavior like 'active workspace' — which is a minor gap. The description explains the parameter's masking behavior via the tool's response semantics, adding value beyond the schema.

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 ('Lists') with a clear resource ('API environments and their variables') and scope ('active workspace'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like unfour.workspace.list_variables (workspace variables) and unfour.api.list_collections (collections), though it does not explicitly name them.

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 clearly implies read-only usage by stating it 'lists' environments and variables, and explains the masking behavior without explicitly stating when not to use it or naming alternatives like list_variables. The context of 'requests using variables can be understood' gives clear signals for API request/realm use cases, only stopping short of explicit exclusions.

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