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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety and side-effect questions are answered structurally. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that—this returns an informational contract rather than live state, and passing project_id switches from generic schema to concrete filled-in examples. It still does not say whether values reflect the current deployment or a static reference.

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, front-loaded with the resource definition before the parameter caveat, with no filler. The dense enumerations (var names, static vs server frameworks) each carry information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists so return shape need not be described, and the description still conveys the useful distinction between build-time and runtime var sets. Given one optional parameter and full annotation coverage, what remains missing is minor—mainly whether the contract is current-state or documentation.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's phrasing closely mirrors the schema wording ('fill in concrete example values from that project's canonical commit') rather than adding new semantics such as what 'canonical commit' resolves to.

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 names a specific resource—the environment contract kad.dev injects into builds and running pods—and enumerates its contents (BUILD_COMMIT full SHA, BUILD_COMMIT_SHA short SHA, user-exposed vars) plus how static vs server frameworks consume them. That is far more concrete than a tautological restatement of the title, though it never contrasts itself with adjacent read tools like get_settings or get_build_logs.

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: the agent can infer this is a read-only reference lookup, and the optional project_id hints at when concrete values are wanted. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use and no named alternative for configuration questions that belong to get_settings or set_env_vars.

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