read_convars

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

Annotations provide no readOnlyHint or destructiveHint, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions that without names a 'common subset' is returned, but does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, potential side effects, or any restrictions. This is minimal behavioral context.

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 sentences, each serving a clear purpose: stating the tool's function and describing parameter behavior. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional param, no output schema), and the description covers basic behavior. However, it lacks information on return format, usage examples, or when to prefer this over the similar 'read_client_convars', leaving some gaps for an AI agent.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, leaving the parameter 'names' undocumented in schema. The description compensates by explaining its effect: without it, a common subset is returned. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though more detail could be given.

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 server convar values and specifies that without the 'names' parameter it returns a common subset. This provides a specific verb and resource, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'read_client_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?

The description implies usage for reading server convars and suggests that providing names yields specific values, but does not offer explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read_client_convars' or other read tools.

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