Print Environment Tool

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the core safety profile. The description adds the debugging context but does not disclose potential sensitivity of environment variables (e.g., containing secrets), which is a behavioral aspect beyond annotations. However, the bar is lower given the strong annotation coverage.

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 that states exactly what the tool does and why it's useful. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple, zero-parameter tool with strong annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It states the output scope ('all environment variables') and a practical use case. It could mention the output format (e.g., key-value pairs), but that is not necessary given the tool's simplicity and lack of an output schema.

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?

Since there are zero parameters, the schema is trivially complete (100% coverage). According to the baseline rule for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description does not need to elaborate on parameter details.

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 states 'Returns all environment variables' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get-sum or get-resource-links. The added context about debugging MCP server configuration reinforces its purpose.

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 specifies a clear use case: 'helpful for debugging MCP server configuration.' It provides context for when to use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which is acceptable given the simplicity of the tool.

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