get_variable

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The description only says 'Gets the value,' which implies a read operation but does not explicitly state that it is non-mutating, does not disclose error behavior (e.g., what happens if the variable does not exist), or mention any auth requirements. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 consists of a single sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately concise for a simple getter tool. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

The tool is simple with a single parameter and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values in detail. However, the description omits any usage context (e.g., when to use this vs. list_variables), error semantics, or side-effect guarantees. While the schema covers the parameter, the lack of behavioral context makes it minimally complete.

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 schema has one parameter, variable_key, which is self-explanatory. The description adds minimal context by saying 'specific variable,' indicating that variable_key identifies the variable. While schema description coverage is 0%, the parameter is simple and well-named, so the description partially compensates but adds little information beyond the schema itself.

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 function: 'Gets the value of a specific variable.' It specifies a verb ('Gets') and a resource ('variable'), and the qualifier 'specific' distinguishes it from listing tools like list_variables. The purpose is unambiguous and differentiated.

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?

No explicit usage guidance or alternatives are provided. The phrase 'specific variable' implies that the tool is used when you know the variable key, which gives some context, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. list_variables or other tools. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites.

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