List project CI/CD variables

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a critical safety detail: variable values are not exposed, which is beyond annotation hints and helps an agent avoid accidentally leaking secrets.

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 delivers the core purpose and key safety constraint. No filler words.

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?

For a simple list tool with robust annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral contract (metadata only). It lacks only a note on pagination behavior, but this is implied by standard list semantics and the schema.

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 only 33% (only 'project' has a description). The description provides no parameter details or compensation for the undocumented page/per_page fields. While pagination names are conventional, the description does not clarify their semantics or interaction.

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?

Description clearly states it lists project CI/CD variable metadata, using specific verb 'list' and resource 'project CI/CD variables'. It explicitly notes that values are not exposed, distinguishing it from get/create/update/delete 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 sets context: listing metadata versus retrieving actual values. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like get_project_ci_variable for a single variable or list_group_ci_variables for group-level variables, so it falls short of full usage guidance.

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