list_convars

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the filtering behavior; it says nothing about result caps (limit max 200), pagination via offset, or what is returned, though an output schema covers returns.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the cause of the missing usage context rather than a sign of disciplined trimming.

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 6 parameters, 50% schema coverage, an output schema and a 1-required-param contract, the description leaves pagination and the convar/command 'kind' switch unexplained. Return values need not be described given the output schema, but pagination behavior is a real gap.

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 coverage is 50%: flag, game and query are documented in the schema, and the description reinforces query as a substring match and flag filtering. It adds no meaning for kind, limit or offset, which are undocumented in both places, so it only marginally compensates.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List console variables/commands') plus the filtering axes, which lets an agent distinguish it from get_convar (single lookup) without opening the schema. It does not explicitly name the sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 filtering phrasing implies a discovery/browse use case and implicitly contrasts with get_convar, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no mention of prerequisites such as the required game id.

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