Fetch run-time variables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses read-only behavior, return format (JSON array of {key, value, sourceType} entries), empty list when none set, and the environment variable dependency (WOPEE_PROJECT_UUID) for PROJECT level. This goes beyond minimal disclosure, though it doesn't cover error cases or rate limits.

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 compact and front-loaded: first sentence states the core purpose, second elaborates the level-specific behavior, third covers return format and cross-reference. No redundant or filler content; every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter getter with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, parameter behavior, return shape, and a pointer to the sibling tool for suite discovery. It doesn't explain `sourceType` values or error conditions, but that's acceptable given the tool's simplicity and the absence of annotations.

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 both parameters already well-documented: `level` includes the enum and PROJECT/ANALYSIS behavior, and `suiteUuid` details the required/ignored condition. The description repeats this info but adds no new semantics. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 reads run-time variables with a specific verb ('Read') and explicit resource ('run-time variables (additionalVariables)'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning the two levels and directing to `wopee_fetch_analysis_suites` for discovery, avoiding confusion with update_variables.

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?

It provides explicit usage context: explains the difference between PROJECT and ANALYSIS, notes the suiteUuid requirement for ANALYSIS, and points to `wopee_fetch_analysis_suites` as the alternative for discovering UUIDs. The 'Read-only' tag also implicitly tells the agent not to use this tool for modifications.

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