environment_variables

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose one important behavior: secret-looking values are redacted, which sets expectations about output completeness. It says nothing about read-only semantics, permissions required, or whether redaction is logged, which is thin for a zero-annotation tool.

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 compact sentences, scope first, caveat second — nothing wasted and no filler. Front-loaded with the resource identity before the behavioral warning.

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 values need not be explained, and the redaction caveat is a useful addition. However, the undocumented name_contains parameter leaves the definition incomplete for a tool that otherwise is simple enough to fully cover in one more clause.

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 0% and the description never mentions the name_contains filter at all, so an agent reading only the description would not know filtering by name is possible. This is the clearest gap given only one parameter exists and it goes undocumented in prose.

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 names the specific resource (environment variables) and scopes it to the server process, so an agent knows it is not reading a remote host's env. It lacks an explicit verb and does not distinguish itself from nearby system-inspection siblings such as system_info or workspace_info.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus alternatives like system_info, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must infer usage purely from the resource name.

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