get_variable

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Gets' aligns with that. Beyond annotations, the description adds the detail 'full configuration' to hint at the output scope, but does not disclose any other behavioral traits (e.g., authorization needs, rate limits). With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not enriched.

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 highly concise: a single sentence stating the purpose followed by a terse parameter list. No wasted words, and the purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool's complexity (4 required parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter meanings, and ID retrieval hints. It lacks explicit error conditions or prerequisite permissions, but the read-only nature and parameter guidance make it largely complete. The sibling set is large, and the description adequately differentiates the tool.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates thoroughly. For each parameter it clarifies acceptable types ('Numeric account ID or full resource path') and provides actionable guidance on how to obtain values ('find it via list_workspaces', 'find it via list_variables'). This goes well beyond the minimal schema, making the tool easily usable.

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 'Gets the full configuration of one variable,' specifying the verb and resource. Among sibling tools that also begin with 'get_', it uniquely targets 'variable', distinguishing it from gets for tags, triggers, versions, etc.

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 implicit usage guidance by listing required parameters and hints on obtaining IDs (e.g., 'find it via list_workspaces'). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternative getters or exclude cases, leaving usage context somewhat implied.

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