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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one genuinely valuable, non-derivable trait: secret values are redacted. However, it says nothing about required permissions, whether the result is ordered/paginated, or how preview environments behave.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the action and immediately qualifying the return contents. Nothing is wasted.

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 two-required-param read tool, the definition plus schema is nearly sufficient, and the redaction note compensates for the absence of an output schema by clarifying that only names come back. Missing only auth/permission expectations and result ordering.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (project, env) are already fully documented in the schema, including the production/staging/preview values. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: lists environment variable *names*. It implicitly separates itself from env.secrets.set/unset/import by being the read-only enumeration, though it never names those siblings explicitly. An agent can tell what it returns (names, not values) without opening the schema.

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 'values are never returned' note hints at the use case of auditing which secrets exist without exposing them. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not, and no pointer to env.secrets.set/unset as the mutating alternatives.

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