list_service_variables

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates this is a read-only operation (implied by 'List' and 'Viewing/Auditing/Checking' use cases) and clarifies scope ('shared variables across all services' when serviceId not provided). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior, leaving some gaps.

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 efficiently structured with clear sections (purpose statement, best for, prerequisites, next steps, related). Every sentence earns its place by providing distinct value: the opening statement defines the tool, bullet points offer practical guidance, and related tools provide context. No wasted words 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?

For a read-only listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides strong contextual completeness. It covers purpose, use cases, prerequisites, and related tools. The main gap is lack of information about return format (what the list actually contains), but given this is a listing operation and the schema covers inputs well, it's reasonably complete.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (like explaining format constraints or providing examples). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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's purpose with specific verb ('List') and resource ('all environment variables for a service'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like service_info, variable_bulk_set, and variable_set by focusing exclusively on listing variables rather than creating, updating, or getting general service information.

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 provides explicit guidance with dedicated sections: 'Best for' lists three specific use cases (viewing configuration, auditing, checking connection strings), 'Prerequisites' names service_list as required, 'Next steps' suggests variable_set and variable_delete, and 'Related' mentions service_info and variable_bulk_set. This gives clear context on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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