get_env_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It indicates the tool is a read-only analysis (shows usage) and names three file categories. However, it does not disclose typical behavioral traits such as performance on large codebases, auth/permissions needs, or whether results are aggregated. It is adequate but not enriched beyond minimal function.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no extraneous information. It is efficient and scannable, though it could potentially add a brief note about the return format without significant bloat.

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 no output schema, the description provides a minimal but sufficient overview of what the tool returns ('where it's defined, read, written'). For a simple cross-reference tool with only 3 parameters and no nested objects, this meets completeness needs. It does not explain result ordering or pagination, but that is acceptable for 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?

The input schema covers all 3 parameters with descriptions. The tool description itself adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema coverage, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: cross-referencing an env var across code, .env files, and workflow configs, showing where it's defined, read, written. It uses specific verbs ('cross-reference', 'shows') and a specific resource ('env var'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_codebase or find_symbol.

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?

Description implies when to use (when needing env var tracing across multiple file types) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools. No exclusions or context about prerequisite conditions (e.g., environment setup).

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