Show HANA env vars

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering the tool's safe, read-only nature. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the function's name, such as output format, pagination, or edge cases, so it does not go beyond what annotations provide.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It states the action, scope, and purpose efficiently, making effective use of minimal space.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema) and the strong annotations, the description provides adequate context for an agent to understand what the tool does. It could mention the output format, but for a read-only env var listing, the current level is nearly sufficient.

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 input schema is empty. Per the calibration rules, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate because there is nothing for the description to clarify about parameters.

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 action ('Show') and the specific resource ('all HANA-related environment variables'), with a clear purpose ('for debugging'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hana_show_config or hana_show_license_info, which target different resources.

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 '(for debugging)' hint implies this is a diagnostic tool, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like hana_show_config or hana_health_check. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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