search_cvars

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, but the description adds real value beyond them: the truncation semantics ('Stops at max, so count is what was returned, not the total') and the partial return shape (value only for variables, not commands). That truncation caveat is behavior an agent cannot infer from 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the return shape, the read-only flag, the truncation caveat, the sibling routing, and the explicit return object. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return burden – and it does, specifying { count, cvars: [{name, value?}] }. Combined with the truncation caveat, sibling routing, and annotations covering safety, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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% – both term (substring, case-insensitive) and max (default 50, minimum 1) are fully documented in the schema. The description restates the substring/case-insensitivity and confirms truncation behavior at max, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 precise verb+resource (search console variables and commands by name substring) with scope (case-insensitive, each hit returns name and value for variables). It explicitly distinguishes itself from list_cvars_with_prefix and get_cvar, so an agent can route correctly among 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?

Names two alternatives explicitly: list_cvars_with_prefix for prefix listings and get_cvar for a single cvar in full. The condition that selects each is stated, so no inference is required.

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