get_variable_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the return content and JSON string format, which strongly suggests a read-only operation. However, it does not describe behavior on invalid paths, missing variables, potential errors, or resource implications.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and organized into clear Args and Returns sections. There is minor redundancy between the opening sentence and the Returns line, but otherwise every part is purposeful.

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?

For a simple two-parameter inspection tool, the description provides enough information to select and invoke it correctly, and the presence of an output schema covers return structure details. It is not fully complete because it omits error behavior and explicit usage guidance relative to sibling tools.

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 provides no description coverage, so the description must compensate. The Args section does this by explaining file_path as 'Path to the NetCDF file' and variable_name as 'Name of the variable to inspect,' adding the semantic meaning missing from the schema.

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 identifies the operation as retrieving detailed information about a specific variable in a NetCDF file, and it enumerates the returned fields (dtype, shape, dimensions, attributes, fill value). This distinguishes it from statistical or sample tools in intent, but it does not explicitly call out sibling alternatives.

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 use when a caller needs variable metadata rather than statistics, samples, or explanations, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus its siblings. No exclusions or preferred alternatives are mentioned.

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