get_plan_variables

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

No annotations exist, so the description must convey behavior. It suggests a read operation ('Get'), but no details on idempotency, error handling, or preconditions (e.g., plan existence). Minimal disclosure beyond the action.

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 (two lines) with a clear 'Args' section. While it lacks further structure (e.g., return info), every sentence is relevant and efficient.

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 existence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. For a simple single-parameter read tool, it covers the essential input and action, though usage context 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by providing an example format ('e.g., 'PROJ-PLAN''). However, it does not explain the structure, constraints, or how to obtain the plan key, adding only partial semantic value.

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 explicitly states 'Get variables defined for a build plan,' using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('variables defined for a build plan'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'set_plan_variable' (write) and 'get_plan' (plan details).

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 (e.g., 'get_plan') or when not to use it. The description only gives the parameter, lacking context for selection.

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