import-env

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively explains key behavioral traits: the tool provides a link to an import page (not performing the import itself), and for security reasons, the AI agent never sees secret values during import. This covers the tool's operational constraints and security implications adequately.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by security context and tool behavior. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does, why it's designed this way for security, and how it differs from direct secret-handling tools. A minor gap is the lack of detail on what the link output looks like, but this is acceptable given the context.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining the context: it provides a link to an import page, implying no input parameters are needed because the user interacts via the web interface. This clarifies why the schema is empty.

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's purpose: 'Import secrets from .env files into SecureCode.' It specifies both the action (import) and the resource (.env files), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'export-env' by focusing on import functionality rather than export.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'For security, .env import must be done through the web interface.' It provides clear context that this tool is for obtaining a link to the import page, not for performing the import directly, which helps differentiate it from tools like 'create-secret' or 'update-secret' that might handle secrets directly.

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