list_egg_variables

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. While annotations indicate read-only and open-world operations, the description specifies this is an 'admin action' requiring specific permissions ('Requires Application API key'), which is crucial information not captured in the annotations. It also provides the Pelican panels special case guidance, though it doesn't mention rate limits or pagination behavior.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: stating the tool's function, specifying what information is returned, and providing important usage constraints. There is no wasted language, and critical information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 read-only tool with comprehensive annotations and full schema coverage, the description provides adequate contextual information. It covers the admin nature of the operation, authentication requirements, and special case handling. The main gap is the lack of output schema, so the description doesn't specify the exact structure of returned data, though it does list the types of information included.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents both parameters (nest_id and egg_id) including their types, constraints, and descriptions. The description adds minimal parameter-specific information beyond the schema, only mentioning the special case for nest_id=0 on Pelican panels. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 specific action ('List all environment variables'), resource ('defined for an egg'), and scope ('admin action') with details about what information is shown (name, env_variable key, default value, validation rules, user editability). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_egg' or 'list_eggs' by focusing specifically on environment variables rather than general egg information.

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 provides clear context about when to use this tool ('admin action') and includes important prerequisites ('Requires Application API key') and specific guidance for a special case ('On Pelican panels, use nest_id=0'). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use this tool or name alternative tools for related but different purposes.

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