List Logic Variables

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: variables hold typed values and are used in flow logic, which clarifies the nature of the returned data and the tool's purpose.

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?

Two short sentences: the first states the action and result, the second provides useful background on logic variables. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 no-parameter list tool with readOnly annotations and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what is listed, what the values are, and how variables are used. The combination of description and annotations is sufficient.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description doesn't need to explain parameter behavior. It correctly focuses on what the list returns.

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 clearly states the tool 'List all logic variables with their current values' — a specific verb (list) and resource (logic variables). It distinguishes itself from siblings like set_variable by focusing on reading variable state, not modifying it.

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 gives context on what logic variables are ('store state (boolean, number, string) that can be used in flow conditions and actions'), implying it's for inspecting variable state. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or name set_variable, but the sibling list makes the use case clear.

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