pvsyst_list_variants

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read, but it does not disclose whether archived variants appear, whether results are paginated or capped, or what identifiers the returned IDs are usable with.

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?

One compact sentence with the category tag front-loaded. Nothing extraneous, though brevity here comes at the cost of missing detail rather than being efficiently dense.

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 output schema covers return values, relieving the description of that duty. However, for a tool whose only parameter format is unknown and whose filtering behavior (archived or not, ordering) is unspecified, the description leaves material gaps.

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% and the single required 'project' parameter is undocumented. The description says 'existing project' but doesn't clarify whether the value is a project name, ID, or path — the key ambiguity for correctly invoking this tool.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (variant IDs) scoped to an existing project, which an agent can distinguish from pvsyst_list_projects and the various create_variant tools. It could be sharper about whether archived variants are included, but the core action is unambiguous.

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 versus pvsyst_inspect_project, pvsyst_get_variant_parameters, or pvsyst_list_projects. A reader infers it's the entry point for enumerating a project's variants, but nothing is stated about prerequisites or alternatives.

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