list_cvars_with_prefix

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description usefully adds that results stop at max and that count reflects returned entries rather than the total, plus what each entry contains. This is real behavioral context beyond the annotations, though truncation/pagination handling is only lightly described.

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?

Front-loads the core behavior, then scoping detail, then the alternative sibling, then the return shape in one compact clause. 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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return shape ({count, cvars}), the entry contents, and the truncation caveat, and annotations cover the safety profile. Nothing needed to call and interpret the result correctly 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 coverage is 100% and documents both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantics the schema lacks: that max causes truncation rather than ranking, that count is post-truncation, and case-insensitive matching on prefix.

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 (List) plus resource (console variables and commands) and the exact scope condition (name starts with prefix, case-insensitive). It also names the sibling search_cvars for the contrasting substring case, so an agent can distinguish it from the broader CVar family.

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?

Explicitly routes substring lookups to search_cvars, giving a clear selection condition. It does not explicitly address the near sibling list_cvars (list-all without a prefix), so the when-not side is only implied.

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