get_global_var

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get', implying a read operation, but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, or what happens if the variable group doesn't exist. The description lacks details on return format, error handling, or any side effects, which is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. However, it could be improved by front-loading more critical information, such as distinguishing it from siblings. The brevity is appropriate but leaves room for enhancement in clarity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'global variable group' entails, how it differs from other variable tools, or what the return value includes. For a tool with three parameters and no structured output information, more context is needed to ensure proper usage and understanding.

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%, meaning all parameters (organizationId, name, revisionSha) are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 'Get a global variable group' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('global variable group'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_variable_group' or 'get_app_variable_groups', leaving ambiguity about scope or specificity. The description is functional but lacks distinction from similar tools.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_variable_group' or 'list_global_vars'. The description offers no context about prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons, leaving the agent to infer usage based on name alone. This lack of explicit guidance reduces effectiveness in tool selection.

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