get_environments

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar for behavioral disclosure is lower. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations by stating that built-in environments like _latest and _production are included when available, along with custom environments. This gives the agent meaningful expectations about the result set.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action, followed by two terse bullet points for invocation and return scope. Every line earns its place with no filler or redundant restatement.

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 zero-parameter read-only list tool, this description is largely complete: it states the project scope, what is returned, and examples of included environments. It falls just short of full completeness because there is no output schema and the per-environment fields or response shape are not described, though the built-in examples give useful context.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents everything about parameters. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a 4 is appropriate, and the description reinforces it by explicitly stating 'No parameters required.'

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'list all Translation Hosting environments' in the current SimpleLocalize project. The plural 'all' and the mention of built-in plus custom environments clearly differentiate it from the singular get_environment_details sibling. Scope is explicit and unambiguous.

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: call this when you need to enumerate environments. It also explicitly notes that no parameters are required. However, it never contrasts this with get_environment_details or states when to prefer the singular details tool, leaving the choice partly to inference.

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