List Variables

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is listing variables, which implies read-only, but does not mention what data is returned, limits, pagination, or any side effects. The 'top' parameter is not explained, leaving important behavioral characteristics undisclosed.

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 sentence of eight words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is appropriately concise with no fluff or repetition.

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 low complexity and lack of output schema, the description is too minimal to be complete. It does not explain what the response looks like, how to interpret the 'top' parameter, or any usage context. A complete description would at least mention that it returns a list and that 'top' limits the count.

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?

The input schema has one parameter ('top') with no description (0% coverage). The description does not mention this parameter at all, so it adds no semantics beyond the schema's type and constraints. The parameter name is self-explanatory to some degree, but the tool description should still clarify its purpose.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'global and local variables persisted by integration flows.' This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from all sibling tools, none of which mention variables.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need to see persisted variables) but provides no explicit usage context, exclusions, or alternatives. Since no sibling tool covers variables, there is no need for explicit alternatives, but the description could still be clearer about intended scenarios.

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