suggest_ab_variant

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it generates new content, requires user data, or if results are deterministic. Only states it 'provides' outputs without elaboration.

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, efficient and no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with purpose, then output summary. Good structure.

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 3 parameters and no output schema, description hints at output type but misses details like optionality of current_performance, number of variants, or format. Adequate but not complete for a suggestion tool.

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 coverage is 100%, baseline is 3. Description adds 'provides hypothesis, variant designs, and metrics to track' which gives context to the output but doesn't elaborate on parameter roles beyond schema descriptions. Minimal added value.

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?

Description clearly states it suggests A/B test variants with hypothesis, designs, and metrics. The verb 'suggest' and resource 'ab_variant' are specific. Does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but sibling tools are mostly analysis/checking, so it stands out.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No mention of prerequisites or when not to use it. The description implies A/B testing ideation but lacks explicit usage instructions.

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