askew_variables_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and meets it: it explains the end-to-end encryption model (values sealed with an account key, relay cannot read them, connector decrypts locally), states exactly what is returned (value text and last-updated timestamp), and enumerates three error conditions with a concrete remediation for the most likely one. This goes well beyond what structured fields would provide.

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?

Four short sentences are front-loaded with the core action ('Read a variable...') before layering security context, return value, and error handling. Every sentence earns its place — no filler, and the error block is structured as an actionable list.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers everything needed to call it correctly: purpose, value semantics, security model, return contents, and failure modes. The only minor gap is remediation for the old-format error, which an agent can readily infer from the askew_variables_set sibling.

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%, with the name parameter already documented as case-sensitive, with examples and provenance, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value above baseline by explaining what kinds of content variables hold (location, plan, preference), reinforcing the semantics beyond the schema's formal constraints.

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 names a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('a variable shared between the agent and the user's phone') with illustrative examples (location, plan, preference). The get/set naming plus the schema's explicit cross-reference to askew_variables_set clearly distinguishes it from its sibling setter, and it does not overlap with the other run/inbox/notify 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?

Usage is implied by the purpose — it reads a shared variable — and the schema names askew_variables_set as the writer, but the description itself gives no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use advice. Error remediation is provided for the missing-account-key case, but there is no guidance for the name-not-found or old-format errors, and no alternatives are excluded.

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