List Node.js environment variables

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds critical behavioral details beyond that: values are always masked as `********` and cannot be read back through this API. This prevents an agent from expecting to retrieve actual secret values and explains why verification is key-based only.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then masking behavior, then usage guidance, then a critical warning about the replace endpoint. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 listing tool with strong annotations and a rich description, this is complete. It covers what the tool returns conceptually (keys, masked values), its limitation, when to use it, and how it relates to the sibling replace operation. The absence of an output schema is not a problem because the response behavior is clearly described.

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%, so the baseline is 3 even without extra parameter explanation in the description. The description itself does not add meaning to `username` or `domain`, and the schema's `username` description ('username parameter') is weak, but this dimension measures whether the description compensates beyond the schema. It does not, though it also is not required to.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Lists the Node.js environment variables currently set for the website.' It also clarifies what the tool does not do (values cannot be read back), which distinguishes it from writing or value-retrieval endpoints. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like hosting_replaceNode_jsEnvironmentVariablesV1.

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 use this endpoint: 'to see which keys are configured or to verify a change, not to read values.' It also points to the exact alternative endpoint for modifications and warns against copying masked values into the replace request. This gives the agent concrete decision criteria.

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