generate_template_variations

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

Given the absence of annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the basic behavior (sampling parameters to create variations) but omits important details: whether the operation is synchronous or asynchronous, resource implications, permissions needed, or side effects. The return format is only briefly mentioned.

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 well-structured with a summary line, mechanism, and parameter docs. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the parameter descriptions add length and could be slightly more concise, but overall it earns its keep as it adds necessary information.

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?

For a tool generating parametric variations, the description covers the core use case, parameters, and return type. It lacks details on asynchronous behavior or persistence, but given no output schema, the mention of return values is helpful. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in most scenarios.

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 description provides substantial added value beyond the schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter: template_id with an example, variation_count with allowed range (1-10) and default (3), and parameter_ranges with the expected structure (dict of param to [min, max]). This fully compensates for the lack of 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 a specific verb and resource: 'Generate multiple variations of a parametric template.' It further explains the mechanism (sampling parameter values) and use cases (exploring design space, offering choices), effectively distinguishing it from siblings like generate_from_template which likely produces a single output.

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 explicitly mentions when to use the tool ('useful for exploring design space or offering choices'), providing clear context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or direct comparisons to alternatives, which would strengthen the score.

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