td_variant_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it explains the output line fields (save time, size, changed-file indicator) and clarifies the changed-original flag is informational, not a warning, because restore reads the variant's own copy. This prevents a likely misinterpretation.

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 short paragraphs with no filler. The core action and scope come first, and the second paragraph adds essential output and nuance. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-optional-parameter list tool with an output schema present, the description is complete: it explains the parameter's optionality, lists the output attributes, and disambiguates a subtle behavioral point. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does by indicating that a single .toe/.tox can be targeted, while omitting the parameter means listing across every project that has variants. It does not explicitly name the 'file' parameter or specify path format, but the semantic is clear.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('saved variants') and immediately scopes the operation to one .toe/.tox file or every project that has variants. This makes it distinguishable from sibling tools like td_variant_save, td_variant_restore, and td_variant_diff by naming the list operation.

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 use case is implied: call it when you want to inspect saved variants, and the file parameter is described by the one-project vs all-projects scope. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to restore/diff/save as alternatives for other variant operations.

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