get_saved_variables

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuine context by framing the data as surviving restarts and naming the backing file. The 'read-only view' clause is somewhat redundant with the annotation, and nothing is said about freshness or caching of the persisted values.

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?

Two tight sentences: the resource and file are front-loaded, then the contents are listed, then the persistence framing closes it. No filler or repeated annotation language beyond one short clause.

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 an output schema present and no inputs, the description only needs to tell the agent what category of data comes back, and the enumerated list does that well. Minor gap: it doesn't say whether values are raw strings or parsed structures, though the output schema likely covers that.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the description correctly avoids inventing any. Baseline 4 applies for a no-argument tool.

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?

Names the specific resource (the printer's save_variables.cfg) and enumerates the concrete contents — Z offset, power-loss-recovery state, Box slot assignments, feature toggles, last printed file — so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly-scoped sibling get_printer_config, which keeps it from 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 phrase 'what the firmware remembers across restarts' implies when this is useful (persisted state rather than live status), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to an alternative such as get_printer_config for configuration values. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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