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

The readOnlyHint annotation is consistent with the non-destructive 'Show' action. The description additionally reveals that secret values are masked, which is a behavioral detail not stated in annotations, enhancing transparency.

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 two sentences, concise and information-dense, covering the merge order, scope attribution, practical use, and secret masking without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The description provides rich context including the merge order, scope names, and the fact that secrets are masked, which is sufficient for most use cases. It does not mention error conditions or output format, but that is not critical for a read-only resolution tool.

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?

projectId is described as optional with 'If omitted, uses the active project context', but environmentId lacks any description in the schema, even though it is required. This leaves a gap in understanding the parameter's meaning or constraints.

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 resolves the effective variable set for an environment by merging scopes in a specific order, using the verb 'Show' which aligns with read-only behavior. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_environment_variables and list_personal_variables by focusing on the merged effective result.

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 explains the practical purpose ('This is what a test run or mock request actually sees') which implies when to use it over fetching individual scope variables. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or contrast with them, leaving some inference to the agent.

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