autocad_get_variables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds a useful behavioral note about verification semantics and reading from the live document, but says nothing about error handling for unknown variable names, permission/auth needs, or the shape of the returned values.

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 tight sentences with zero waste; the core action and scope are front-loaded before the verification guidance.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers what it reads, how many, examples, and a usage caution. Only the return shape and failure behavior are left unstated, which are minor gaps here.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It reinforces the 1–50 count constraint from maxItems/minItems and provides example variable names, which communicates the naming convention the regex enforces and what kinds of values are valid.

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 resource (AutoCAD system variables) with scope ("from the live document") and concrete examples (CMDACTIVE, CLAYER, INSUNITS) that make the resource unambiguous among many autocad_* siblings.

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?

Gives a clear usage condition: use readback to verify command effects, since an idle state alone does not prove success. This implies the workflow relationship with autocad_send_command but does not explicitly name that sibling or state when not to use this tool.

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