marketplace_get_marketplace_app_variables

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

With no annotations, the description does add value by listing the return structure (a list of variables with name, description, required). However, it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, potential errors (e.g., if app_id not found), rate limits, or whether it returns all variables or only some. The description is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 efficient, using a short summary plus a bulleted return list. It front-loads the main purpose about the app_id parameter. There is no verbosity, but the inclusion of the Args section could be streamlined; still, it's clear and structured.

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 is simple with one parameter and an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the parameter identifier options, the return structure, and the purpose. It could expand on error handling or edge cases, but for the scope, it covers what an agent needs to make a correct call.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description fully carries the burden. It explains that app_id accepts a name, short_name, or image_id, with an example. This adds meaning beyond the bare parameter name. It gives context on accepted identifier formats, which is helpful for correct invocation.

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 the purpose: getting configuration variables for a marketplace application. The verb 'Get' and the resource 'configuration variables for a marketplace application' are clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like marketplace_get_application or marketplace_search_applications, though the unique focus on variables helps distinguish it.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are mentioned. An agent might infer usage from the name and context, but there is no exclusions such as 'use this only when you need variable definitions, not deployment guides.' The description doesn't state prerequisites like having a valid app_id or that this is for exploration before deployment.

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