Produktvarianten auflisten

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it is a read operation listing all variations, but does not mention output format, pagination, or behavior when the product is not variable. Minimal but not misleading for a basic list 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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It directly states the action and target, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 simplicity (one required parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description plus parameter schema are sufficient for a basic list operation. However, the absence of annotations and any mention of return format means it is not fully complete, but adequate for the intended use.

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 provides 100% coverage with a clear description for productId ('Produkt-ID des variablen Produkts'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already clarifies, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Listet') and resource ('alle Varianten eines variablen Produkts'), clearly distinguishing this tool from sibling tools like woo_list_products, which list products rather than variations. The scope is precise and 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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative tools are mentioned. However, the description implies its usage: when you need all variations of a specific variable product identified by productId. This is sufficient for a simple read tool but lacks formal exclusions or alternatives.

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