get_cvar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the returned field set (value plus parsed string/int/float/bool variants, help, flags, set_by) — information no output schema provides. It does not discuss failure behavior for unknown variables.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the purpose front-loaded and the return shape immediately following. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description's return-shape listing is necessary and present, making the tool callable without guesswork. Minor gaps remain around error cases and how it relates to set_cvar/list_cvars.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema itself supplies an example name ('r.ScreenPercentage'), so the description adds nothing new about the single name parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Reads a console variable's live value, help text, and flags'), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like list_cvars, search_cvars, or get_engine_ini_value, leaving that routing to inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the set_cvar counterpart, and no note on how it differs from list_cvars/search_cvars. The agent must infer usage purely from the verb.

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