list_component_variants

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it accurately describes a read-only listing operation, it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or that it requires no special permissions. The description is not misleading but adds no extra behavioral context beyond the stated action.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then provides specific details. Every word is informative and there is no redundancy. It is an optimal length for a simple tool.

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 the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is fully complete. It explains the purpose, parameter, and what the output represents (a list of variant names). No additional context is needed for an agent to correctly select and invoke this 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?

The input schema already describes the parameter componentName with 100% coverage, but the description adds value by providing examples (e.g., 'Button', 'Input', 'Modal') and clarifying that it refers to Gluestack UI components. This extra context helps the agent understand the expected format and domain, going beyond the schema's brief description.

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', the resource 'all available variants for a specific Gluestack UI component', and even enumerates the variant types (nativewind, themed, unstyled). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_components (which lists components) and get_component (which gets component details).

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what it does, without specifying prerequisites, context where it is appropriate, or when not to use it. For example, it could mention that this tool is useful for discovering available styling variants before using a component.

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