task_getVariables

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It successfully discloses the scope hierarchy behavior (returns both task-local and inherited parent process variables), which is critical for variable resolution logic. However, it omits mutability status, error conditions (e.g., task not found), or pagination behavior.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. First sentence establishes purpose; second sentence adds critical behavioral context about scope inheritance. Appropriately front-loaded and sized.

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?

No output schema exists, yet description fails to describe return structure (variable format, types, map structure). Additionally, with empty input schema, it does not clarify how the target task is identified (path parameter vs context), leaving invocation ambiguous despite explaining the retrieval logic.

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?

Zero parameters present (empty properties object). Baseline score 4 applies as per rubric ('0 params = baseline 4'). Description appropriately makes no parameter claims since there are none to document.

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?

Specific verb 'Retrieve' + resource 'variables' + scope 'user task'. The mention of 'user task' and dual-scope return (task + parent process) effectively distinguishes it from sibling processInstance_getVariables (process-scoped) and task_setVariables (mutation).

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?

Provides implied usage by specifying 'user task' context, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs processInstance_getVariables or how to handle cases where variables exist in both scopes (shadowing). No alternatives named.

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