get_variable_defs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses several non-obvious behaviors: collectionsOnly does not read variables, returned collections may not be a complete inventory, pagination/coverage must be checked before concluding absence, summary omits values, and no arguments preserves full results. It does not cover permissions or rate limits, but the key behavioral caveats are present.

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 compact and front-loads the main purpose. Most sentences add concrete behavioral information, though phrases like 'Otherwise collections describe...' are slightly ambiguous and reduce readability.

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?

This is a complex 9-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, so the description needs to be fairly complete. It covers core modes and important caveats, but omits explanations for type, modeIds, and limit/offset semantics, leaving an agent to infer too much from the schema alone.

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 low at 22%, so the description should compensate. It adds useful meaning for collectionsOnly, query, requested IDs, summary/profile, pagination, and no-argument behavior, but it does not explain type, modeIds, limit/offset bounds, or several parameter interactions, leaving significant schema gaps.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it reads local variables or collection inventory. It also distinguishes two operating modes through collectionsOnly, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling 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?

It explains that collectionsOnly:true is for listing collections and that query then filters collection names, which is useful conditional guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or name any sibling tools, so usage guidance is implied rather than fully specified.

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