alternative_distribution_package_versions__variants__list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the endpoint, but there are no side effects or quirks to disclose. It does not contradict annotations.

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 conveying the action and resource, with the endpoint appended for precision. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 simple list operation with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It clearly identifies what is listed and the parent entity. Pagination is hinted by the limit and next_url parameters, and no return-format explanation is required.

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 100% for all three parameters (id, limit, next_url), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but it also does not need to compensate for coverage gaps.

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 the action ('List') and the resource ('variants belonging to an alternative distribution package version'), and includes the exact endpoint. It distinguishes from siblings like alternative_distribution_package_variants__get (single variant) and alternative_distribution_packages__versions__list (list of versions).

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 provides clear context for what the tool does, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use. However, the resource-specific phrasing makes the intended use obvious, and it is not misleading.

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