Get group CI/CD variable metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the key behavioral guarantee that the value is never exposed, which is not captured by annotations and is essential to prevent misuse. This goes beyond the safety profile provided by structured data.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence communicates the core function and the critical limitation. No wasted words; the structure is ideal.

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 annotations and an output schema present, the description only needs to cover behavior not already captured. It does that for the value limitation, but it leaves the 'filter_environment_scope' parameter behavior unspecified, which is a meaningful gap for a 3-parameter tool.

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 only 33%, with only 'group' documented. 'key' and 'filter_environment_scope' remain unexplained, and the description adds no parameter semantics. The name/description imply 'key' is the variable identifier, but 'filter_environment_scope' is left completely obscure.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('group CI/CD variable metadata'), adding the crucial qualifier 'without exposing its value'. This distinguishes it from project-level, list, and value-returning variable tools.

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 implies usage context—when you need group-level variable metadata and not the actual value—but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The value-exclusion caveat gives subtle guidance, yet no prerequisite or contextual instruction is provided.

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