get_env

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. The verb 'Read' implies a non-destructive operation, and the scope is clarified by 'persistent WSL shell'. However, it doesn't disclose the return format or behavior when a name is not found, which could be expected for a read tool.

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 concise sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides immediate usage guidance, with no redundant details.

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?

With no output schema, the description should describe what is returned, but it doesn't. Additionally, the 'distro' parameter is missing from the description, making the tool's invocation only partially specified. Given the tool's simplicity, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'name' parameter ('Pass name for one var, or omit for all'), but the 'distro' parameter is entirely unexplained, leaving a gap in the tool's semantic understanding.

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 a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('environment variables'), and specifies the context ('persistent WSL shell'). It clearly differentiates from the sibling 'set_env' by focusing on reading rather than writing.

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?

It provides explicit usage instructions: 'Pass name for one var, or omit for all.' This defines when to use optional parameters. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, though the read/write contrast with set_env is implied.

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