List Depot CI variables and their scoping

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description focuses on valuable extra behavior. It explains the variable-as-variants scoping model, reveals that values can be redacted when they resemble secrets, and warns that the underlying API is beta and likely to change.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then moves through use cases, behavioral nuances, and API stability in a logical order. Every sentence earns its place, and the length is appropriate for the tool's conceptual complexity.

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?

With annotations covering safety and an output schema present, the description only needs to explain selection and behavioral nuance, which it does thoroughly. It covers scoping, redaction, filtering location, and beta instability, leaving no important gap for correct invocation.

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 already describes all five optional parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic context by explaining that a single variable name can have multiple variants scoped by repository, environment, branch, and workflow, and by clarifying that filtering is performed server-side.

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 verb and resource: it lists Depot CI variables, their values, and their scoping. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling depot_list_ci_secrets by explicitly noting that variables return values while secrets do not.

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 explicitly identifies the use case: answering "why can't my job see $FOO" and checking whether a variable holds the expected value for a branch or environment. It references the sibling secrets tool, but does not give a strict when-not-to-use rule beyond the contrast that variables return values.

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