get_variables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It successfully conveys a read-only operation ('List') and discloses the returned content (collections, modes, variables with specific fields and the optional filter). However, it doesn't mention any rate limits, required permissions, or what 'local' implies in contrast to other scopes, so it's slightly above baseline but not fully exhaustive.

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 entire description is one sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, then provides a compact list of return fields. Every phrase earns its place; there is no superfluous information or repetition of schema content.

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 tool's low complexity (a single optional parameter, no output schema), the description is complete: it explains what is listed, the filter capability, and the specific fields returned. An agent can decide whether to invoke it and what to expect without additional context.

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 fully documents collectionId with 'Optional variable collection ID to filter results to', giving 100% schema coverage. The description reinforces this by saying 'Optionally filter to a single collection', but adds no new semantic detail beyond confirming the parameter's purpose. Baseline 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?

The description opens with a specific verb, 'List', and clearly identifies the resource: 'local variable collections (with their modes) and variables'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_styles or get_local_components by explicitly scoping to variables and collections, and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, resolvedType, valuesByMode), leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 usage via 'List' and 'Optionally filter to a single collection', but provides no explicit comparison to alternatives or when-to-use guidance. While it clearly indicates the action, it doesn't state when this tool is preferable over, say, get_styles or get_document_info, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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