get_variants

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

Discloses that output is capped at 'top_k' (default 20) and includes total variant count for truncation awareness. However, with no annotations provided, it does not cover permissions or side effects, though the 'get' verb implies read-only.

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?

Two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second adds a key behavioral detail. No wasted words.

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, return values need no explanation. However, the description lacks context about required parameter 'log_id' and does not differentiate from sibling variant tools. Adequate for a simple retrieval but with 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'top_k' and its default but does not explain 'log_id' or what constitutes a 'variant'. Parameter meaning is partially provided.

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?

Clearly specifies 'Return the most-common trace variants and their counts.' The verb and resource are distinct from sibling tools like 'abstract_variants' and 'filter_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 such as 'abstract_variants'. The description only mentions output capping but does not provide context for selection.

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