get_text_variables

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a safe read operation through 'Return' and adds semantic context about ${VAR} substitution, but it does not disclose potential prerequisites, side effects, or limitations. For a simple zero-parameter getter with an output schema, this is adequate but leaves clear 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 a single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. Every word earns its place by naming the verb, resource, and a useful semantic detail about ${VAR} substitutions.

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 low complexity (0 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states what is returned and adds substitution context. It could be strengthened by mentioning how it relates to sibling tools like expand_text, but the output schema covers return details.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the scoring rules. Schema coverage is 100% and there are no parameter semantics to clarify beyond the empty schema.

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 ('Return') and resource ('project's text variables') and clarifies what the variables are used for ('${VAR} substitutions'). It is clear but does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like set_text_variable or expand_text, which prevents a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as expand_text or set_text_variable. It implies a read operation but offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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