get_component_variants

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 the operation is a read ('Get'), returns specific fields (IDs, names, parameters), and mentions case-sensitive matching. However, it lacks details on error handling, pagination, or rate limits, which are important for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return details and usage note. It consists of two efficient sentences with no wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and parameter usage but lacks information on return structure (beyond listing fields) and potential behavioral aspects like errors or constraints. For a tool with 1 parameter and 100% schema coverage, it meets minimum viability but could be more 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 100%, with the parameter 'componentName' well-documented in the schema. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing that the name should match exactly as in 'list_components' and is case-sensitive, but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'story variants/states for a specific component', specifying it returns 'all stories (variants) for a component with their IDs, names, and parameters'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_components' (which lists components) and 'get_component_by_purpose' (which filters by purpose) by focusing on variants of a single component.

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 when to use this tool: to retrieve variants for a specific component, with the component name needing to match exactly as shown in 'list_components'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as using 'search_components' for broader queries.

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