faber_get_env

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'read-only', which implies no destructive actions, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, error handling). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (read operation with 2 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, error conditions, or how it fits into the broader context of app management with sibling tools, leaving gaps for effective agent use.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('username' and 'server'). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how the username relates to the app or default server behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 action ('Read') and resource ('.env file for an app'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'faber_set_env_var' or 'faber_app_logs', which would require explicit comparison to earn a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios where this is preferred over other tools like 'faber_set_env_var' for setting environment variables or 'faber_app_logs' for logs, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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