list_service_variables

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

With no annotations, the description should explicitly mention read-only behavior and response format. The word 'List' implies no side effects, but it does not explicitly state safety or absence of destructive actions. It also omits details about pagination, rate limits, or auth requirements. While it adds value with prerequisites and next steps, behavioral transparency is only moderate.

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 very concise, uses structured bullet points with clear sections (Best for, Prerequisites, Next steps, Related), and front-loads the key action. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no fluff.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description could provide more complete context. It does not describe the response format (e.g., array of variable objects), potential for large response, or any pagination behavior. It covers prerequisites and related tools well but leaves gaps in operational details.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on parameters beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., the meaning of optional serviceId). No additional semantics are added, so the score remains at the 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 clearly states 'List all environment variables for a service', providing a specific verb and resource. The 'Best for' bullet points further refine use cases (viewing config, auditing, checking connection strings), and the related tools clearly distinguish it from siblings like variable_set and variable_delete.

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 includes prerequisites ('service_list'), next steps ('variable_set, variable_delete'), and related tools, offering a clear usage flow. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool (e.g., if you need to filter variables by name), which would enhance the guidelines. Still, the provided context is strong.

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