shell_env_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it contributes only the persistence scope. It says nothing about behavior for a missing variable (error vs empty/null), whether values are inherited from the OS environment, or whether the value is evaluated/expanded.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource and the scoping qualifier front-loaded; nothing redundant or padded.

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?

For a one-parameter getter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers what is needed to invoke it correctly. The main omission is missing-variable behavior, which keeps it short of complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% — the single 'name' parameter is already documented as '环境变量名' — so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds only the notion of a persistent session, not format, case sensitivity, or lookup rules for the parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('获取...环境变量值') plus the scope ('持久化会话中'), so the agent knows this reads a stored variable rather than executing a command. It does not name the complementary sibling shell_env_set, but the read/write split is inferable from the names.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase '持久化会话中' hints that this retrieves variables previously persisted (e.g. via shell_env_set) rather than live shell state. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-shell_exec guidance and no note about what happens if the variable is unset.

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