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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value: it discloses that secret values are never returned and that a pending-redeploy signal is included. These are behavior facts an agent cannot get from the annotations or schema.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the two most agent-relevant caveats (keys-only, redeploy-pending) placed in a compact parenthetical. No filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what matters: what is listed, that secrets are withheld, and that redeploy state is reported. It could briefly sketch the returned shape (e.g., a key list plus a pending-changes flag), but nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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?

There is a single parameter (project_id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics and the baseline is 3. The phrase 'a DenkOps project's' merely restates the parameter's meaning without adding format, lookup, or scoping detail.

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) plus a precisely scoped resource (a DenkOps project's environment variable KEYS) and clarifies a critical output constraint — values are write-only and never shown. It implicitly separates itself from write-side siblings like set_env/unset_env, but never names them, so full sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the read-side counterpart to set_env/unset_env and is useful for checking whether a redeploy is needed. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative such as redeploy or set_env.

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