List env keys

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a critical security behavior—never returning values—and scopes the operation to a specific app. However, it omits details like output format, error handling, or authentication requirements.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the action ('List the env keys') and the key constraint ('keys only, never values'). There is no fluff, and the critical detail is front-loaded.

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 parameter, no output schema, and no annotations—the description covers the core purpose and the important behavior of not exposing values. Minor gaps remain, such as what happens if the app does not exist or the response format, but these are not critical for a straightforward list operation.

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 lists a single required parameter 'app' with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description adds minimal context by referring to 'for an app,' indicating that 'app' identifies the target application. It does not specify the expected format (e.g., app ID vs. name) or provide additional details.

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 lists env keys for a specified app, and explicitly notes that only keys are returned, never values. This distinguishes it from set_env and other sibling tools that modify or generate keys, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_env or push_generate_keys. The read-versus-write distinction is implied but not stated, and there is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites.

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