list_env

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description aligns with. The description goes beyond annotations by explicitly stating that values are never exposed, adding important safety context for the agent.

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?

Three sentences, no wasted words. Each sentence adds value: first sentence states purpose and return data, second clarifies what is not returned, third gives usage guidance. Well-structured and concise.

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 simple (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, return data, and guidance on actual value retrieval. No output schema means the description must cover return values, which it does sufficiently.

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 description does not add meaning beyond the input schema, but schema coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3. The schema already describes the project_id parameter, and the description focuses on tool behavior rather than parameter 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 action (list env var keys) and resource (project) and explains what is returned (key names and is_secret flag). It distinguishes itself from other env-related tools like set_env and delete_env by focusing on listing.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use process.env.KEY inside a deployed function to read actual values, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention siblings.

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