setup_get_svars

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It indicates a read operation but says nothing about error handling, whether setup_path must already exist, side effects, permissions, or how values are represented. This is minimal behavioral transparency.

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?

A single, efficient sentence that front-loads the primary action and result. There is no redundant wording or 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?

For a simple single-parameter getter, the description covers the essential purpose and return type. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it stops short of explaining edge cases, return format details, or how this differs from related variable-getter tools.

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%, with setup_path described as 'Setup path'. The description adds no parameter details beyond the schema, which fits the baseline of 3 when the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 states a clear verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('all Setup variables'), and the returned data ('names and values'). It is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like svar_get, so it loses the top point.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as svar_get, setup_get_inputs, or other setup-level getters. The intended context is only implied by the presence of setup_path.

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