Get an egg's variables

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

The description accurately reflects the read-only nature (list operation) and the annotations confirm readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. It adds context about the returned fields, including user permissions, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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 a single concise sentence that fully conveys the purpose and return fields without extraneous wording. Well-structured and immediately understandable.

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 list operation with no output schema, the description is sufficient. It names the resource (egg variables) and the fields returned, while the parameter details are fully documented in the schema. No missing 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 provides full descriptions for all five parameters (egg, nest, page, search, per_page), so description coverage is 100%. The tool description itself does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already states, hence baseline score of 3.

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 tool lists environment variables for an egg and enumerates the fields returned (name, env var, default value, validation rules, user see/edit permissions). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like calagopus_get_egg (which retrieves egg details) and calagopus_list_eggs (which lists eggs).

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 context is clear: this is a read-only list operation for egg variables, and the name aligns with its purpose. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, but the sibling tools cover different resources, so the usage is obvious. Lacks explicit exclusion guidance, hence not a 5.

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