debug_get_variables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool returns conceptually and does not describe read-only behavior, response shape, error behavior, or how 'filter' affects results.

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 no filler or repetition. However, it is so terse that it forfeits opportunities to add useful context, so it is not a 5.

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?

The description is minimally adequate: it states the tool's purpose and the schema covers all parameters, including the filter options. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves out the response format and the typical flow for obtaining variables_reference, which would make the tool easier to invoke correctly.

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%, with all parameters already documented in the input schema. The description adds little beyond hinting that variables_reference refers to a scope or expandable variable, so a baseline score of 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 action ('Get variables') and a specific resource ('variables for a scope or expandable variable'), which clearly distinguishes it from debug_get_scopes. It does not explicitly contrast with debug_evaluate or other siblings, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as debug_get_scopes or debug_evaluate. It also does not mention that variables_reference is typically obtained from a prior scope or variable lookup, or when to use the 'filter' option.

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