List env keys

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It clearly states that values are never returned, which is a key security/privacy behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only (non-mutating) or describe any pagination, ordering, or error behavior. It adds some value but remains thin.

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, succinct sentence that front-loads the key behavior (listing keys) and the security constraint (never values). Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 is a simple list operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details about return format, ordering, or any side effects (e.g., whether it might trigger a refresh). For a read-only list, this is borderline acceptable, but the absence of annotations raises the bar.

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 has a single parameter 'app' with no description (schema coverage 0%). The description says 'for an app' but does not clarify what form the app parameter takes (e.g., name, ID, slug). With such low schema coverage and zero parameter explanation in the description, the agent may struggle to know how to populate this field correctly.

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 states a specific verb (List) and resource (env keys) scoped to an app, and explicitly notes it returns keys only, never values. This is clear enough to distinguish from set_env, though it doesn't name the sibling tool explicitly.

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 like set_env. There is no mention of prerequisites, filters, or scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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