envInfo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states 'Show' indicating a read-only operation, which is transparent. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like establishing a database connection to check status, nor does it mention any failure modes.

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 sentence that efficiently lists the key information shown. Every word adds value, and it is front-loaded with the action and resource. Zero waste is present.

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, parameterless tool, the description reasonably covers the key outputs (APP_ENV, APP_DEBUG, database connection status). However, it lacks any mention of when to prefer this over 'envInfoSafe', and since there is no output schema, the exact return format is unspecified.

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 has zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter-level meaning. The baseline is 4 because there is no need to compensate for undocumented parameters. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool does rather than how to configure 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 clearly states the tool shows Laravel environment info including specific variables and database status. It has a specific verb ('Show') and resource, but does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'envInfoSafe' which may have a similar purpose.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'envInfoSafe' or other environment-related commands. The description implies general usage for checking environment info but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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