variable_read

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It states the tool reads the current value and returns both formatted and raw forms, which is transparent for a read operation. However, it does not mention error conditions or type restrictions, 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 a single sentence that immediately states the action and result. It is concise and front-loaded, with no unnecessary words.

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 simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It does not specify the return format (e.g., JSON object with 'formatted' and 'raw' keys) or how to interpret the variable_id.

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 single parameter variable_id is not explained in the description beyond its role in identifying the variable. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's type and constraint.

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 (liest/reads) and resource (IP-Symcon variable), and specifies that both formatted and raw values are returned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like variable_set (write) or object_children (list children).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., variable_set for writing, object_children for listing). The description only states what it does without providing context for selection.

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