envInfoSafe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature and the key safety behavior of filtering sensitive values. However, it does not specify the output format or behavior if the environment file is missing, which would enhance transparency.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action and includes the critical filtering behavior. There is no wasted text or redundancy.

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 tool with no parameters and no annotations, this description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does and its key safety filtering. However, without an output schema, a brief note on the return format (e.g., key-value pairs) would make it fully self-contained.

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 and the description correctly adds no parameter details. This matches the baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools, as the schema is trivially complete.

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 reads Laravel environment info, which is a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes itself from the sibling envInfo tool by explicitly mentioning filtering out sensitive values like keys, passwords, and tokens.

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 implies usage for safely reading environment info, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over envInfo or exclude scenarios. No alternative tool is named, leaving the agent to infer intent from the 'Safe' suffix.

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