list_cvars

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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, read-only, idempotent, closed-world operation, so the bar is low. The description goes further by disclosing that it iterates IConsoleManager::Get().ForEachConsoleObjectThatContains, that commands are skipped in favor of only variables, and that results are capped at max_results – real behavioral detail beyond the annotations.

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 plus a return-shape block, all front-loaded with the primary operation first. The return block is justified because no output schema exists, so no sentence is wasted.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the return object (filter, cvars, count, total_matches, max_results, truncated), including the truncated flag an agent needs to detect capped results. With annotations covering safety, this is nearly complete; only sibling routing is missing.

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%, with both filter (substring, empty matches all) and max_results (default 200, min 1) fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the substring filter and the cap but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

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 ("Lists registered console variables") and adds the substring scope, which cleanly separates it from a prefix-based listing. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like list_cvars_with_prefix or search_cvars, so an agent must infer the distinction from the scope description alone.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not point at the nearby alternatives (list_cvars_with_prefix, search_cvars, get_cvar, list_cvars_with_prefix). The substring filter implies its use case, but nothing routes the agent between these closely-named sibling tools.

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