env_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses two key behaviors: secrets are auto-filtered (so sensitive variables will not appear) and a specific permission is required. This is meaningful and goes beyond the minimal 'list' definition. It could mention the return format or that it is read-only, but the verb 'List' already implies non-mutating behavior.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no filler or redundant details. Every word adds value.

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 parameterless, read-only list tool, the description is complete. It clearly states what it does (list env vars), the key filtering behavior (secrets auto-filtered), and the required permission. Although there is no output schema, the return value is conceptually simple and needs no further explanation.

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?

The input schema is empty (0 parameters), so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed as there are no arguments to understand.

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 states 'List environment variables' with a specific verb and resource, and adds 'secrets auto-filtered' to clarify scope. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like env_get (read a single variable) and env_set (modify variables).

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (to list all environment variables) and includes the prerequisite 'Requires env.read permission' which is a gate for usage. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the listing purpose implicitly excludes env_get/env_set, so it stops 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.