github_actions_list_org_variables

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

No annotations are present, and the description provides no behavioral details beyond the name. It does not disclose that this is a read-only operation, whether authentication is needed, or that pagination is supported (though parameters hint at it). The description fails to carry the burden of transparency.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence that accurately conveys the purpose. However, it could be slightly improved by mentioning optional pagination, but given the tool's simplicity, it remains effective without being wasteful.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., a list of variables) and mention pagination behavior. Currently, it offers no such context, making it incomplete for an agent to understand the full effect of its invocation.

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?

All parameters (org, per_page, page) are fully described in the input schema with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'List organization variables' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (organization variables). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create, get, update, and delete operations for organization variables, as well as from list_org_secrets which targets a different resource.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that this lists all variables (with pagination) while get_org_variable retrieves a single variable. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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