gograph_envs

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

The description goes beyond annotations by explicitly stating it is 100% local, read-only, has no side effects, requires no authorization or credentials, has no rate limits, and performs zero destructive modifications. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, but the description adds operational context.

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 well-structured with sections (behavior, usage, completeness) and every sentence provides value. It is concise yet comprehensive, with no redundant information.

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 simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description fully explains the tool's purpose, behavior, inputs, and outputs. The completeness section explicitly details what is returned: env keys, default fallbacks, file and line locations.

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 input schema has one optional parameter 'term' with a description that matches the filter behavior. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb 'Extract and audit', the resource 'environment variables', and the scope 'across the codebase'. It mentions the specific Go functions (os.Getenv, os.LookupEnv) and distinguishes from the sibling tool gograph_literals.

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 call the tool (compiling configuration profiles, verifying env parameter bindings, auditing configuration management) and when not to (do not use for magic constant literals, use gograph_literals instead).

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