get_app_variables

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions pagination and wildcard search, which are useful behavioral traits, but fails to disclose critical information: whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication is needed, rate limits, error conditions, or the structure of returned data. For a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and mentions key features. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format, how variables are 'split by source', what the pagination response looks like, or error handling. For a data retrieval tool with filtering and pagination, more context is needed for effective use.

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 fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it mentions 'wildcard search' which aligns with search_string/search_number parameters, and 'pagination' which aligns with limit/offset. However, it doesn't provide additional context like typical use cases for created_in_script or interaction between parameters.

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 ('Return') and resource ('variables'), and specifies they are 'split by source (script/ui)'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_app_details or get_app_field by focusing on variables rather than other app components. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible variable-related tools that might exist.

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 implies usage through mentioning 'pagination and wildcard search', suggesting this tool is for browsing/filtering variables. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like get_app_field or get_app_script, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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