hana_show_env_vars

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool shows environment variables for debugging, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't explicitly confirm this is a safe operation, doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or what format the output takes. The description provides basic intent but lacks important behavioral details.

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 perfectly concise at just 8 words, with the core purpose stated first ('Show all HANA-related environment variables') and the additional context ('for debugging') efficiently appended parenthetically. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 zero-parameter, read-oriented tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal context. It explains what the tool does and suggests a debugging use case, but doesn't describe the output format, scope limitations, or relationship to other debugging tools. Given the simplicity of the tool, the description is complete enough but could benefit from more operational detail.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. This meets the baseline expectation for zero-parameter tools.

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 verb ('Show') and resource ('all HANA-related environment variables'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like hana_show_config by specifying 'environment variables' rather than configuration files. The parenthetical '(for debugging)' adds helpful context but doesn't fully differentiate from all siblings.

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 minimal guidance with '(for debugging)' suggesting a diagnostic context, but offers no explicit when-to-use rules, no exclusions, and no comparison to alternatives like hana_show_config. There's no mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, or when this tool would be preferred over other debugging methods.

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