get_environment_variables

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It accurately states the operation is read-only (os.Environ), describes redaction of sensitive names (SECRET, TOKEN, PASSWORD) to '***', and notes the sorted output format, providing substantial transparency beyond the bare function. No annotations contradict this information.

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 efficiently organized with multiple short sentences, each conveying a distinct piece of information: return type, filtering behavior, read-only nature, redaction policy, and use case. It is slightly redundant with the schema regarding the search filter, but overall it is compact and well-structured without waste.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, read-only operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential context: what is returned, how to filter, safety/redaction, and typical use cases. No critical information is missing for an agent to correctly select and invoke this tool.

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 description for the single 'search' parameter already fully explains that it filters by name prefix or substring, case-insensitively. The tool description repeats this same information, adding no new semantic value beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, a 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns the server process's environment as a sorted key-value map, which is a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools that focus on other system aspects like networks or CPU, with no ambiguity about what this tool offers.

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 clear usage context by suggesting 'Use to debug PATH, locale, and server configuration,' which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name any alternative tools, so it stops short of full exclusionary guidance.

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