environment_variables

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-inferable behavior: values of secret-looking names are redacted, warning the agent that some results will be masked. It does not mention truncation or large-output handling, but with an output schema present that gap is small.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource scope, and the redaction caveat immediately follows. No wasted words.

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-value structure needn't be explained, and the redaction caveat is a helpful addition. However, for a tool with a filtering parameter, leaving name_contains entirely undocumented makes the description incomplete for correct invocation.

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 single parameter name_contains has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned anywhere in the description, so an agent gets no explanation of the filter's matching semantics (substring? case-sensitive? applies to names only, not values?). This is a real gap that the description should have closed.

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?

Names the specific resource (environment variables of the server process) and implicitly the read action, which distinguishes it from siblings like system_info or server_health. It lacks an explicit verb, but the noun phrase is unambiguous enough for an agent to know what it returns.

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 gives no indication of when to prefer this tool over siblings such as system_info, policy_info, or server_health, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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