runtime_get_global_vars

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves variables but does not disclose whether it is a read-only operation, any side effects, permission requirements, or performance implications. The absence of such details results in a baseline score.

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 a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the key information.

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 description is incomplete as it does not explain the return value or output format. Since there is no output schema, the agent lacks information on what the tool returns (e.g., a list of variable names, key-value pairs, or objects). This gap is significant for effective usage.

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 100%, so the input schema already describes the single 'pattern' parameter with an example. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Therefore, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: retrieving encryption-related variables and objects from the page's global scope. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('global scope variables'), and implicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on analyzing crypto parameters, extracting keys, or identifying libraries.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or when to choose this over sibling tools like 'crypto_auto_detect' or 'crypto_identify_library'. The agent must infer from the tool name and context.

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