read_client_convars

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

The description partially discloses behavior by noting that omitting names yields a 'common subset.' However, without readOnlyHint or destructiveHint annotations, it does not confirm safety or side effects, nor cover invalid inputs or error handling.

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 concise sentence. While efficient, it lacks structural elements (e.g., bullet points) that could improve readability. It earns points for brevity but not for organization.

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 no output schema and minimal annotations, the description should offer more context. It does not explain return format, error conditions, or behavior for invalid names. The tool is a data-reading operation, so completeness is lacking.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description bears more responsibility. It mentions 'names' only implicitly ('Without names') but fails to explain acceptable values, the effect of different names, or the nature of the 'common subset.' This is insufficient for parameter understanding.

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 it reads 'Client-side convar values' and specifies behavior when names are omitted ('returns a common subset'). This provides a specific verb+resource scope, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool read_convars.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_convars. The description implies client-side use but lacks explicit context, exclusions, or references to sibling tools.

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