environment_info

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: secret-like variables are always redacted, and values are only included when explicitly requested for non-sensitive variables.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded ('List environment variable names'), and the key redaction caveat is included compactly.

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 read-only tool, the description and schema together cover names, optional values, redaction, and filtering. No output schema exists, but the return concept is clear enough; minor gaps like exact filter matching semantics are acceptable at this complexity level.

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 100%, so filter and include_values are already documented. The description adds value by clarifying that secret-like variables are redacted even when include_values is true, which is an edge-behavior the schema alone does not fully 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'List environment variable names' and optionally non-sensitive values. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like system_info or machine_status, and the redaction mention adds precision.

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 implies the tool is for inspecting environment variables, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives such as shell_command or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative routing is provided.

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