get_global_variables

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral clarity. It correctly describes a non-destructive read operation ('List... variables') and specifies the filtering behavior is optional. It does not contradict any missing annotations, and fully communicates the tool's safe, query-like nature.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences with zero waste. Every word adds value — the first defines the tool, the second adds the filtering nuance. The critical information is front-loaded, and no trivial or redundant statements exist.

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 tool's simple purpose (listing global variables with optional filter), the 1 optional parameter, and the presence of an output schema (which can describe return structure), the description is fully complete. It provides everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly in this context.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains the single parameter 'filter' by stating it optionally filters results by substring. For a single optional parameter, this is sufficient to guide usage beyond the schema's bare structure.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and resource 'named global data variables in the binary', and includes an optional filtering capability. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_local_variables (which list local, not global, variables) and list_strings or get_imports (which list different data types).

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 states the tool lists global variables with optional substring filtering, implying its use case for inspecting program data. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives (e.g., using search_bytes or navigate_to for finding specific data), the context of sibling tools (get_local_variables for locals, list_functions for code) makes the purpose distinct enough for an agent to decide appropriately.

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