tf_generate_variables

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only promises 'validation and descriptions' in the output, but does not explain whether it writes files, returns content, requires authentication, or has any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that generates artifacts.

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 concise sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the core action and resource. It could be expanded with more behavioral context, but that is better handled in other dimensions.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters (2 required), no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must compensate. It does not explain how module_name and variables interact, what 'validation and descriptions' concretely produce, or what the caller receives. An agent might be unsure whether this creates files, returns a string, or performs an in-memory generation.

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 four parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but per the baseline rule, this is acceptable when the schema covers everything.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Generate Terraform variable definitions'. It also mentions 'with validation and descriptions', giving some detail beyond the tool name. It is distinguishable from siblings like tf_generate_module because it specifies variable definitions rather than a full module, but it does not explicitly contrast with those siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tf_generate_module or tf_best_practices. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided, so an agent cannot determine the appropriate call scenario from the description alone.

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