get_local_variables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It states the tool is a 'convenience tool' implying read-only behavior, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, error conditions, or whether an active session is required. The description is truthful but lacks depth on behavioral traits.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence that front-loads the main purpose. It is not wasteful, though it could incorporate more detail without harming conciseness.

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 simplicity and lack of output schema, the description covers the main purpose and convenience aspect. However, it does not explain return values, error conditions, or the effect of includeSpecial, leaving gaps in completeness for an agent to fully understand usage.

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 input schema includes two parameters: sessionId (required, no description) and includeSpecial (optional, described). The tool description does not add any additional meaning to sessionId beyond the schema. With only 50% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to elaborate on parameter semantics.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get local variables for the current stack frame.' It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('local variables for the current stack frame'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_scopes and get_variables by noting it is a convenience alternative to manual traversal.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use this tool: as a convenience alternative to manually traversing stack->scopes->variables. However, it does not explicitly exclude use cases or mention when alternatives like get_variables or get_scopes might be preferred, lacking explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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