list_variations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only', which discloses non-destructive behavior, and additionally reveals the fields returned (name, relationship, default hierarchy, isDefault). It does not cover edge cases or authentication, but this is sufficient for a simple list operation.

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, tightly-written sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word contributes, with no filler or redundant 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?

The description covers the core aspects: the operation, the read-only safety, and the returned fields. It does not explain parameter semantics (especially sessionId) or provide usage context, but given the simplicity of the tool, it is largely complete.

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%, and the description adds little beyond the parameter names. It implies 'column' is the target column, but does not explain 'table' or 'sessionId', leaving 'sessionId' especially vague. The description fails to compensate 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('date-navigation variations on a column') with a parenthetical list of returned fields. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'add_variation' and 'delete_variation' by focusing on read-only enumeration.

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 or alternatives are mentioned. The description implies its use for inspecting existing variations, but lacks guidance on when not to use it or when to prefer a related tool.

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