review.debug.env

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. The verb 'shows' implies a non-destructive, read-only operation, which is accurate. However, it does not mention potential sensitive data exposure (e.g., environment variables), permissions, or any side effects, though for a simple display tool this may be adequate.

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. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, containing no filler or redundant information.

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?

The description lacks detail about the return value or output structure. With no output schema, it should specify what 'shows' produces (e.g., a formatted list, JSON, plain text) and what 'env' encompasses (e.g., environment variables, working directory). This gap leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's result.

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 accepts zero parameters, and the schema has no properties. Per the rubric, a baseline score of 4 applies when there are no parameters, as the description need not elaborate on parameter meanings.

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 the server-recognized path/env' using a specific verb (shows) and resource (path/env). It is distinct from sibling tools, which focus on review collection, prompt creation, and task management, making this a unique diagnostic utility.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool or how it compares to alternatives. There is no mention of typical debugging scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name 'debug.env'.

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