get_variables

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'get' implies a read-only operation, and the mention of 'names' clarifies the output scope, but it does not explicitly state non-mutating behavior or return format. This is adequate but not rich.

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 words. 'Get all game variable names' is concise yet informative, every word contributing to 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 getter with no parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It clearly indicates the resource (game variable names) and the operation (get all), which fully defines the expected behavior. Additional return-format details are unnecessary for such a straightforward tool.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty and there are no semantics to explain. Per the rubric, the baseline is 4 for 0 params, and the description does not need to add anything.

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 'Get all game variable names' uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('all game variable names'), clearly stating the tool's purpose. It is distinct from siblings like 'set_variable_name' and 'get_switches' by focusing on reading variable names.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'get_database' or 'get_switches'. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or typical use cases, leaving the agent without contextual direction.

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