Get project CI/CD variable metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the key behavioral disclosure that the variable's value is not exposed, which is crucial for security-sensitive CI variable operations. This goes beyond the generic read-only annotation, though it does not describe additional behaviors such as permissions or edge cases.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and it avoids unnecessary details. It effectively communicates the essential purpose in minimal text.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. Annotations cover the safety profile. The tool is simple with three parameters, and the description plus schema provide a reasonably complete picture. However, the undocumented 'filter_environment_scope' parameter leaves a small gap in understanding, preventing a perfect score.

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% (only 'project' has a description), falling well below the 50% threshold, so the description must compensate with parameter semantics. It does not. The 'key' and 'filter_environment_scope' parameters lack any description beyond their names, leaving their exact meaning and format ambiguous. While 'key' is somewhat self-explanatory, 'filter_environment_scope' is not, and the description adds no clarity.

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 clearly states the tool's function: retrieving project CI/CD variable metadata. The specific verb 'Get' combined with the resource 'project CI/CD variable metadata' and the qualifier 'without exposing its value' distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_project_ci_variables, create_project_ci_variable, update_project_ci_variable, and delete_project_ci_variable. It also distinguishes from group-level variable tools by specifying 'project'.

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 by naming the resource and the safe nature of the operation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like list_project_ci_variables or get_group_ci_variable. It lacks explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mentions of alternative tools, which is a noticeable gap given the presence of closely related siblings.

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