Environment Variables Summary

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

Annotations already declare a full safe-read profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely valuable context beyond them: only names plus a sensitive-name flag are returned and values are never exposed, which is a meaningful privacy/security guarantee. It does not cover pagination or how 'limit' truncates results.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler. The most important constraint — names only, values never exposed — is front-loaded and unmistakable.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be re-explained, and the description correctly summarizes what is returned. However, the tool's only parameter is undocumented in both schema and prose, leaving a real gap for a low-complexity read 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?

There is a single 'limit' parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it — no default, no max, no explanation of what gets limited. The schema alone would not tell an agent how to use it.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Return environment-variable names') and precisely bounds the scope with 'and a sensitive-name flag only. Values are never exposed.' This clearly separates it from siblings like system_info or installed_software, though it never names an alternative 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives for inspecting environment data, and no stated prerequisites. Usage is only loosely implied by the returned content.

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