krl_lookup_system_var

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose useful return content: description, type, range, read/write permissions, syntax, examples, and six languages. However, it omits behavior for unknown variable names, error handling, and does not clarify read-only nature beyond implication.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted framing. The parenthetical list of variable examples is slightly lengthy but directly useful for an agent recognizing valid inputs.

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 read-only lookup tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately states what information is returned and the supported languages. It could be stronger by noting error behavior or whether all listed variables are guaranteed for every KSS version in range.

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 100%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description adds marginal value by listing example variable names and mentioning six languages corresponding to the locale parameter, but it does not explain format or semantics beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Looks up') with a precise resource ('KUKA System Software system variable') and scopes it to KSS 8.3-8.7. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like krl_lookup_kss_message by focusing on system variables, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 states what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Looks up'.

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