get_variants

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only operation and specifies included data (status, report, preview) and excluded data (no aesthetic score), but omits permissions, side effects, pagination, and response format details.

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 that states the action, scope, and exclusion without filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple read 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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not document the required study_id parameter, return structure, or when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_review or get_preview.

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 0% for the single required parameter study_id. The description never mentions study_id or explains what identifier it expects, adding no meaning beyond the schema's bare type and title.

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 'Read' and resources ('exact status, report and preview views') and explicitly excludes aesthetic score, distinguishing its scope. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_preview or get_review, and 'candidate' is not tied to the tool name's 'variants' without inference.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_review, get_preview, or choose_variant. The description is purely declarative and does not mention prerequisites, context, or selection criteria.

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