list_variants

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; it does imply a read of child records under a master, which is useful, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, ordering, or permissions. The pipeline-step label adds workflow context but not behavioral detail.

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 sentences with no filler; purpose and the dedup instruction are both front-loaded. The leading bracketed pipeline label is slightly noisy but still informative.

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-parameter read-only listing tool with no output schema, purpose and usage are adequately covered. Return shape and pagination remain unspecified, which is the only real gap.

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% and the single parameter content_id is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add format, scope, or edge-case meaning beyond it.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('variants derived from a master Content'), and relates itself to the sibling create_variant, so an agent can tell what it returns versus what its siblings do.

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?

'Check here before create_variant to avoid duplicates' gives an explicit usage trigger and names the alternative. It lacks a when-not clause (e.g., use list_contents for masters), but the routing intent is clear.

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