resolve_variable

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose important behavior: resolution spans dotenv, docker-compose, and Kubernetes, and precedence is evaluated. However, it does not state side-effect freedom, error behavior, missing-file handling, or any operational prerequisites, leaving notable gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

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?

One concise, front-loaded sentence delivers the core function and the key differentiator (which source wins). There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

Given the moderate complexity of 7 parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it states what the tool returns conceptually (evaluated value and winning source) and all parameters are otherwise documented. It could be stronger by noting how to handle missing variables or by connecting to sibling tools, but the essential selection and invocation context is present.

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 schema already documents every parameter. The description adds conceptual context by naming the source types, which loosely ties to files/service/workload/container, but it does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

Description uses a specific verb ('resolves') and identifies the exact resource: what a config/env variable evaluates to across dotenv, docker-compose, and Kubernetes, including which source wins. This clearly differentiates it from siblings by focusing on multi-source resolution and precedence, not tracing, manifest inspection, impact, or diffing.

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 implies a clear usage context: use when you need the actual evaluated value of a variable across multiple config-source types and the winning source. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of the strongest guidance.

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