Get environment

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

With no annotations, the description carries all burden but only mentions 'optional masking'. It does not disclose behaviors like error handling for missing files, default behavior when 'keys' is omitted, or how masking works (full vs partial).

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 single sentence is concise but lacks structure. It communicates the core function but does not organize information for quick scanning (e.g., no separation of purpose, usage, parameters). Could be improved with bullet points or a second sentence.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits return format, error conditions, and parameter dependencies, leaving significant gaps for an agent to infer.

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 coverage is 0% and description only adds meaning for 'maskSecrets' via the masking mention. The other three parameters ('source', 'path', 'keys') are left entirely unexplained, forcing reliance on parameter names and enum values.

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 returns environment variables from two specified sources (process env or .env file) with optional masking, distinguishing it from sibling tools that do not explicitly provide env variable access.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor on choosing between 'env' and 'dotenv' sources or when masking is appropriate. The usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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