List Personal Variables

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable context: personal variables override others, are private, secret values are masked, and organization context is required. These behavioral details go beyond what annotations provide, though it does not cover pagination or return format.

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?

Three concise sentences that front-load the core action, then add scope, behavior, and requirements. No filler or redundancy; 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?

For a simple list tool with a read-only annotation and two well-documented parameters, the description covers the key aspects: scope, behavior, visibility, masking, and context requirement. While it omits response format or pagination, these are minor for a list operation.

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 100%, so both projectId and environmentId are already documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics, so it stays at the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('personal variables'), scoped to 'one environment', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_environment_variables or export_variables. The purpose is immediately unambiguous.

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 explains when to use this tool by noting personal variables override org/environment variables, are visible only to the user, and require organization context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the scoping and override behavior provide clear contextual guidance for selection.

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