atcCheckVariant

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, it discloses that the tool reads nothing about the variant and only returns a worklist id. It also surfaces the 500 failure mode. It does not describe the exact response shape, but that is a minor gap for a read-only one-parameter tool.

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?

Three sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded and every subsequent sentence adding useful caveats or routing information. There is no filler.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns, why it is needed, and the critical failure mode. It could clarify whether the worklist is newly created or must already exist, but the core calling contract is clear.

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 single 'variant' parameter is already fully documented in the schema with 100% coverage. The description reinforces that it expects a variant name rather than a worklist id, but adds no format or constraint details beyond the 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?

States a specific action ('Opens a worklist'), a target resource (ATC check variant worklist), and a return value (its id). It also explicitly contrasts with atcCheck, making the tool's standalone role clear.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool: when you need a worklistId for createAtcRun. It warns that passing the variant name to createAtcRun causes a 500 and names atcCheck as the combined alternative, so an agent can route correctly.

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