cadence_env_vars

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It does disclose the scoping nuance ('currently visible to the process') and the variable families returned, which is useful. It stops short of stating that the operation is read-only/non-mutating or what the snapshot format looks like, which for a zero-param read tool is a minor gap.

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 the resource and examples front-loaded, followed by the diagnostic purpose. No filler, though it is not quite a model of maximally economical phrasing.

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 simple zero-parameter, read-only diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description supplies enough: what it returns, the notable variables, and the use case. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly appears to be missing.

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 tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing to document beyond confirming the absence of inputs; the baseline for a 0-param tool is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument invocation.

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 action and resource: returns a snapshot of Cadence-related environment variables currently visible to the process, naming concrete examples (CDSROOT / CDS_LIC_FILE / LM_LICENSE_FILE). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like cadence_probe or allegro_batch_run, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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?

Gives an intended context ('用于诊断 license / 路径配置问题' — for diagnosing license/path configuration problems), which implies when to reach for it. However, it names no alternatives and no when-not-to-use condition, so the routing guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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