variant_list

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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or side-effect-free, nor any limitations (e.g., lists only active variant, requires a loaded project). The description only states what it lists, not what it does beyond that.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and adds one useful detail ('basic component counts'). There is no redundancy or wasted words, making it highly concise.

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 existence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool, the description covers the core functionality well. However, it lacks explicit context about the scope (e.g., current design) and the meaning of 'available' (active variant vs all defined variants), which could be ambiguous for an agent. This prevents a perfect score.

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 zero parameters, and the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. 'Basic component counts' hints at output rather than parameters, so the score matches the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource 'available design variants', also adding 'basic component counts' as a differentiator. Sibling tools like variant_create or variant_set_active are clearly distinct, so the purpose 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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as variant_diff_bom or variant_export_bom. There is no mention of when to inspect variants or how this relates to other variant tools. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the general action of listing.

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