abstract_variants

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

The description discloses internal behavior: variants are auto-ranked by frequency and truncation is based on max_len, not top_k. With no annotations provided, this adds useful transparency. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only or other side effects like performance impact.

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 brief with two sentences. The first sentence clearly states purpose, and the second adds implementation detail. It is concise without extra fluff, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 has an output schema (so return format is covered) and three parameters, the description is fairly complete. It explains the main behavior and key parameter nuance. However, it could mention that the output is a ranked list or provide example usage context.

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%, but the description adds meaning for two out of three parameters: it clarifies max_len controls truncation (not top_k) and include_performance toggles per-variant performance. log_id is left implicit. This compensates well for missing schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool traces variants with frequencies and optionally per-variant performance. It uses specific verbs ('trace') and resources ('variants'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like get_variants or filter_variants, which also deal with variants.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions it wraps an internal function but does not provide context about preferred use cases or when to choose it over other variant-related tools.

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