getSyncVariant

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 merely states 'Get', which implies read-only, but does not describe return format, error handling (e.g., 404 on missing), authentication requirements, or any side effects. This is a minimal behavioral description with significant gaps.

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 concise sentence, 'Get a single sync variant', with no fluff or redundant information. It is front-loaded with the primary action and resource, making it highly efficient for agent consumption.

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 the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It does not mention what a sync variant is or what the return value looks like, but for a simple getter this may be enough. However, the lack of output schema or behavioral context leaves some 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'sync_variant_id' with description 'Sync variant ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this. Since schema coverage is high, baseline 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 'Get a single sync variant' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('sync variant') and includes the modifier 'single' to indicate singular scope. It clearly distinguishes from plural siblings like getSyncProducts and from other resources like getSyncProduct, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as getSyncProduct or getProductVariant. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from naming alone.

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