get_model_variables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It details the return structure (model_id, variables mapping, individual_count), describes edge cases (empty dict if no variables), and implies a read-only operation. It does not explicitly state that no model modifications occur, but this is clear from context.

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 well-structured with clear sections (short intro, args, returns, examples, notes). Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded. No redundant content.

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 (one required parameter) and the description covers usage, parameter semantics, return format with examples, and important notes about variable scoping. Given the output schema exists, the description provides sufficient completeness.

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 0%, so the description must add parameter meaning. It explicitly defines 'model_id: The GO-CAM model identifier' in the args section and demonstrates usage with examples, fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Get the currently bound variables for a GO-CAM model,' specifying the action (get) and resource (variables of a model). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_fact or remove_individual by focusing on variable retrieval.

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 examples and notes explaining when to use this tool (after batch operations, to identify actual IDs for cross-batch operations). It notes that variables are valid only within the same batch operation, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives.

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