List a variation group

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description's safe-read nature is consistent. The description adds context about the resource and purpose, aligning with the annotation. No extra behavioral details needed.

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?

A single sentence of 20 words, front-loaded with the core action and resource. No redundant words; every part adds value.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns and the purpose. Could mention sorting or pagination, but not required for completeness.

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 description explains 'group' as a variation group id, but 'project' is not elaborated. With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates by clarifying one of two parameters, leaving the other ambiguous.

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 (list), resource (gallery assets), and context (sharing a variation group id for side-by-side review). It distinguishes from sibling list tools by specifying the exact grouping concept.

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 implies usage when reviewing variation group assets for side-by-side comparison. It does not explicitly exclude scenarios or name alternatives, but the specific context is clear.

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