Read story variables

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

With no annotations, the description usefully discloses return format ("Output is JSON"), the no-paths default (shallow top-level summary), and the accepted prefix variants. It is silent on invalid-path handling and result-size limits, but for a simple read tool it adds meaningful 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?

Three front-loaded sentences, each carrying distinct information (what, format variants, default/output). No filler.

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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, input format, default behavior, and output type. Only edge-case behavior (invalid paths, the 50-item cap) is left unstated.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by documenting accepted input forms ("V.x", "variables.x", plain "x") that the schema does not mention, giving genuine added meaning.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (story variables / SugarCube State.variables) with concrete dot-path examples. It is clearly distinguable from sibling tools like get_journal or inspect_ui, which read different resources.

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?

Usage is implied by the examples and the default-behavior note, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to an alternative sibling. It leaves the agent to infer context.

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