Plik .env site

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower; the description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing that the result contains secrets in plaintext and must not be shared publicly. This is a materially important behavioral trait for an agent handling the output. Nothing in the description contradicts the annotations.

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?

Two short sentences with purpose front-loaded and the critical security caution second. Every sentence earns its place and there is zero waste. The Polish language of the description is consistent within the tool's evident locale, so it is not penalized.

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 read tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers everything needed to make the call correctly. With no output schema present, the description does not specify the exact return format, but the plaintext-secrets warning reliably conveys the most important expectation about the response. Minor gaps remain only around error behavior and response parsing details.

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% — both 'org' and 'site' are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning or constraints, so it meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed it.

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 a specific verb ('Pobiera' – gets/fetches) and a precise resource (the .env file of a site), so an agent understands exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling forge_update_env, though the read-oriented verb and tool name make the contrast mostly self-evident. The Polish title 'Plik .env site' is only a noun phrase, but the description fully compensates.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as forge_update_env or forge_get_site. The security warning ('do not paste the result into public places') is a handling caution rather than a tool-selection guideline. An agent is given no when-to-use / when-not-to-use framing.

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