get_project_variable

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it covers very little. It reveals the return includes the variable 'value', which is useful for a secrets-oriented resource, but says nothing about required permissions, whether masked/protected values are returned in plaintext, or failure behavior when the key or environment scope does not exist.

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?

A single clause, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler or redundancy. It is arguably too terse for the behavioral gaps it leaves, but as written every word 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 three-parameter read tool with fully documented parameters, the description is close to sufficient, and the absence of an output schema is partly compensated by the phrase 'details and value'. What is missing is the safety/permission context that annotations would normally supply for a tool that reads secret material.

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%: each parameter is documented in the schema, including key format, project_id forms, and the environment-scope filter. The description only reinforces the key lookup ('by key') and adds no format or behavioral detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Get ... CI/CD variable ... by key') and even discloses the payload ('details and value'), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It is distinguishable from list/create/update/delete_project_variable by the singular 'specific ... by key' phrasing, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as list_project_variables for discovering keys. The only hint is the implicit 'specific ... by key' phrasing, which weakly implies the caller already knows the key but leaves the list-vs-get decision to inference.

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