get_environment_credentials

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

Annotations already mark this as a safe read, but the description adds material behavioral context beyond them: it requires the caller's OAuth token, it explicitly states the client secret value is NOT returned (a key expectation-setter), and it points the agent to the dashboard for that secret. This is exactly the kind of disclosure a read-credentials tool needs.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place, led by the core action and followed by routing, auth, and the secret caveat. No filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey return values, and it does (client id, env URL, secret suffix as a .env block) while also flagging what is not returned and the auth requirement. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single environmentId parameter is fully documented with its env_<id> format, so the schema carries the load. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and enumerates the exact resources returned (API client id, environment URL, secret suffix) plus the output format (.env block). It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_environment_details by naming what that sibling returns instead (environment name and domain, not the client id).

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?

Names the alternative (get_environment_details) and the condition that selects it, and adds a prerequisite (caller OAuth token). It stops short of a full when/when-not statement for this tool itself, but the routing guidance is clear.

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