get_variable

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full transparency burden. The verb 'Read' implies a non-destructive query, but the description does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects, nor does it describe behavior on invalid variable names. It is minimally transparent but lacks explicit safety or error behavior disclosure.

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 sentence, front-loads the action and resource, and every word earns its place. It is concise without sacrificing clarity.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is adequately complete. It conveys the core purpose and provides examples, but it omits information about edge cases (e.g., invalid variable names) and return structure, though the output schema likely covers the latter.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides examples of system variables, implying that the 'name' parameter is a system variable name, but it does not explicitly map the parameter or describe its format. The examples add some meaning but not comprehensive parameter semantics.

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 'Read' and identifies a clear resource ('system variable') with concrete examples (CLAYER, DIMSCALE). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_entity or get_extents, which operate on drawing objects rather than system variables.

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 makes the tool's context clear by stating it reads system variables and giving examples, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Since no sibling tool reads system variables, the usage context is well-implied.

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