proj_list_variants

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important trait: the call compiles the project, which is a non-trivial side effect an agent should know about. It does not say whether the compile is expensive, whether it mutates project state, or what happens if compilation fails, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for a zero-annotation 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?

The opening sentence is front-loaded with purpose and the Args/Returns blocks are scannable. The Returns block largely restates the output schema, which is minor redundancy, but nothing is gratuitously verbose.

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?

An output schema exists, so the detailed Returns section is somewhat redundant, but the description still supplies the compile-behavior and default-path facts an agent needs. The only real gap is the absence of usage routing among the many variant-related siblings.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it documents project_path, marks it optional, and explains the fallback behavior ('If None, uses active project'), which is exactly the semantic the schema lacks.

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?

Specific verb and resource ('List all project variants'), plus scope detail about component overrides and variation kinds. It is clearly distinguishable from write siblings like proj_create_variant or proj_delete_variant, though it never names an alternative such as proj_print_all_variants or proj_export_variant_matrix_csv to sharpen the boundary.

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 says what it returns but never states when to reach for this versus proj_get_active_variant, proj_print_all_variants, or proj_export_variant_matrix_csv. No prerequisites, exclusions, or cost tradeoffs are mentioned beyond an implicit 'this compiles the project'.

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