variables_listList every variable used across a set of clauses and identify which clause uses it, ensuring no variable is overlooked before assembling documents.
Given a set of clauses, list every {{variable}} they use and which clause uses it, so nothing is missed before assembling.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clause_ids | Yes | Clause ids or titles |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.20.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It clearly states what the tool does: list variables used across clauses and map them to clause usage. However, it does not disclose the exact return format, whether results are deduplicated, or what happens if a clause is invalid or a variable is repeated across clauses.
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 that front-loads the input condition and immediately states the action and purpose. Every phrase earns its place, and the 'nothing missed' motivation clarifies why an agent would call the tool.
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 one-parameter read-only list operation, the description covers what the tool does, why to use it, and what the output contains (variables and their clause usage). No output schema exists, so the stated result shape is the main fallback, and it is adequately described. Minor details like return formatting or empty results are not necessary for basic invocation.
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 the schema already documents clause_ids as clause IDs or titles. The description adds the conceptual meaning of clauses as the source of variables, but does not add new parameter-level detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 names a specific operation (list every variable), the input (a set of clauses), and the output scope (which clause uses each variable). This clearly distinguishes it from any sibling tool and makes the tool's purpose immediately obvious.
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 gives explicit context: this should be used before assembling something and is meant to ensure nothing is missed. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the sibling list contains no competing variable-listing tool, so this is sufficient guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.