uidf.list_user_var_values

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does not specify if this is a read-only operation (expected), what side effects exist, or whether it requires certain permissions or state. For a listing tool, it fails to mention if it returns empty results or errors when no variables exist.

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, short sentence that fits on one line. It is concise and front-loaded. However, it may be slightly underspecified given the lack of context from annotations or schema, but that is penalized elsewhere.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description does not cover return value format, errors, or preconditions. However, 'list' tools are generally low-complexity; the name and param names hint functionality. It is minimally adequate for a simple listing operation but leaves gaps about error scenarios and parameter formats.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. It doesn't explain the purpose of 'session_id' or 'function_start' parameters beyond their names. 'function_start' has two types (integer or string) with no hint about format; the description adds no value here. Baseline 3 due to 0% coverage, but fails to improve.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'user variable values for a function', making the purpose immediately understandable. Among siblings, uidf tools are rare; there's 'uidf.set_user_var_value' and 'uidf.clear_user_var_value' which are write operations, so this is naturally distinguished as the read counterpart.

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 no guidance on when or when not to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't contrast with related uidf tools like 'uidf.parse_possible_value' or note any prerequisites (e.g., needing an active session with a function). The agent has to infer context from the sibling lists.

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