audit_env_vars

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or that it does not modify files. While an audit inherently suggests non-destructive checks, this is not stated, and there is no mention of potential side effects, output format, or error conditions.

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 concise, using two sentences to list the core audit checks and supported languages. There is no redundant information or fluff; every clause adds value. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 tool is simple (one parameter) and the description covers its main function and scope. However, it does not describe the output or return format, which might be important for an agent to know how to use the results. Since there is no output schema, the description should ideally clarify what the tool returns (e.g., a report, list of issues), but it remains silent on this.

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 single parameter 'path' is described as 'Project root directory,' which adds a useful clarification beyond the schema's type and required status (it specifies that the path must point to a directory, not a file). However, the description does not elaborate on how the path is used or any constraints (e.g., must exist). With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3; the minor addition keeps it at 3.

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: to audit environment variable usage, listing four specific checks (undefined references, unused vars in .env, secrets in templates, missing .env.example entries). This verb-noun pairing ('Audit environment variable usage') is precise and distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on complexity, security, or testing.

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 implies usage by listing supported languages (Python, JavaScript, shell scripts) and the types of findings, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. An agent can infer that this tool is for env var audits, but there is no direct guidance on when to choose it over other analysis tools.

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