env_env_check

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

Discloses the return format {ok, present, missing}, which implies the tool does not modify state and is purely diagnostic. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it meets this well. However, it doesn't mention edge cases like behavior when 'keys' is empty or contains invalid names, but those are minor.

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 action and return format, followed by a usage example. No wasted words.

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 covers purpose, return format, and usage context. Output schema exists (implied by the return structure), so the description doesn't need to explain it further. However, the parameter 'keys' is not well described, slightly reducing completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'all required environment variables' in the purpose, but the parameter 'keys' is not explained in the description. The schema shows it's an array, but the description doesn't clarify that 'keys' expects a list of environment variable names to check. This is a gap.

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 checks environment variables and returns a specific result structure. It distinguishes itself from siblings like env_env_get (which gets a single variable) by focusing on a batch check. However, it could be slightly more explicit about the verb 'check' being a validation operation.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this to verify API keys before attempting to call external services.' This provides clear context and a practical scenario, effectively differentiating it from other env tools.

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