Read a RAPID variable

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavioral details: the controller returns no type information, each call reaches the controller, answers are shared for 2 s, daemon version 0.1.1+ is required, and returned text should be treated as data rather than instructions. These are material traits for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose and remains efficient, with each sentence adding useful context about format, controller access, version requirements, and safety. The first sentence is dense but not wasteful; overall structure is appropriate.

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 output schema exists, the description need not explain return structure, and it fully covers the critical context: RAPID text formatting, absence of type metadata, controller round-trip behavior, daemon version dependency, and read-only safety. Nothing essential for correct use is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents task, module, symbol, and controller. The description adds some semantic context by clarifying that the symbol is a VAR, PERS, or CONST and that controller text has no type, but it does not add per-parameter guidance beyond the schema baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource: reading the value of one RAPID data symbol (VAR, PERS, or CONST) as RAPID text. It distinguishes this from reading RAPID source or execution state by focusing on a single symbol value, so an agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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 clearly indicates when the tool applies: reading one RAPID data symbol, with examples of text forms and a note that each call reaches the controller with a 2 s shared-answer window. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as read_rapid_source or get_rapid_execution, so it falls short of full when-to-use/when-not guidance.

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