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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them usefully: raw values are withheld by default, delivery methods can be env var/file/unix socket, and values may be raw or URL-fetched at container start. It does not mention pagination or result size for what could be a long list.

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?

A single dense paragraph that front-loads what the tool is and then enumerates the returned fields; every clause carries information rather than filler. It is slightly long but no sentence is redundant with the schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (scope, reached containers, delivery methods, raw vs URL-fetched), which is exactly what an agent needs to interpret results. Minor gaps remain around ordering, size limits, and the conversation_id/context tracking parameters.

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 all four parameters are already documented, including include_values' default and its secret-exposure rationale. The description's restatement of the include_values behavior adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('List an environment's scoped variables') and immediately defines the domain jargon — environment-level values/secrets injected into containers at runtime. It is clearly distinguishable from the write counterpart manage_scoped_variable by the verb alone, but it never names that sibling explicitly, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 implied by the tool name and the read-only framing, and the include_values default hints at a secret-safe inspection use case. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when to reach for manage_scoped_variable instead, and no prerequisite guidance for the required environment parameter.

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