detect_env_vars

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does convey a read/scan-oriented behavior and discloses that replies include where the user can find known values (e.g., Supabase). However, it does not describe output shape, branch behavior, or operational constraints, leaving several behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 with a front-loaded core action. It contains no filler; each clause contributes either scope, output behavior, or timing guidance.

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 tool with one required parameter, the description is largely complete: it states the purpose, the input, when to run it, and partial output behavior. The main gap is the unaddressed branch parameter and a fuller description of the return payload, but the absence of an output schema and the tool's straightforward nature keep this from being a major issue.

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 coverage is only 50%: 'repo' is described as owner/name but 'branch' has no description. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning and never mentions the optional branch parameter or its effect. Given partial schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 a specific action ('Scan a repo'), a concrete resource ('a repo'), and the exact detection scope (import.meta.env / process.env usage). It also distinguishes the tool's role by tying it to the deploy flow, which helps separate it from siblings like deploy and set_env.

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 explicitly says when to run this tool: 'Do this BEFORE the first deploy of a Lovable/Bolt/v0 export.' This is concrete and actionable. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as set_env, so exclusions are missing.

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