env_overview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the discovery set, that results are grouped by env root (multiple in a monorepo), the categories of findings (counts, duplicates, syntax problems, BOM/CRLF, client prefixes), and the key privacy guarantee 'Never shows values'. It omits any sandbox-escape/error behavior for paths outside the sandbox, which keeps it from a 5.

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 first sentence declares scope, the long second sentence enumerates sources and findings, and the final clause plus parameter note make it front-loaded and actionable. It is dense but each clause adds information; the enumeration is long though justified for this tool.

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 needn't be explained, and the description still covers scope, sources scanned, grouping behavior, reported finding types, non-disclosure of values, and the sandbox semantics of the single parameter. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% for the sole parameter, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that path is relative to the server's --dir sandbox and that the default ('.') scans the whole sandbox. That is meaningful context the bare schema string 'Path' does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Map every environment-variable source under a folder') and then enumerates exactly which sources it finds (.env, .env.local, .env.<environment>, templates, docker-compose environment:/env_file:, CI workflow env: blocks). It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the breadth-first scanning tool ('Start here').

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 closing 'Start here' explicitly positions it as the entry point before the sibling tools (compare_env, find_usage, validate_env, check_gitignore, generate_example), which is real routing guidance. It does not name when-not to use it or which sibling to pick afterwards, so it falls short of a 5.

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