List a variation group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's assertion of listing is consistent. It adds context about the nature of variations (alternatives from one prompt) beyond annotations, but does not disclose details like pagination or ordering.

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?

Single sentence, no fluff, but could be more structured (e.g., bullet points). Adequately concise.

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 list tool with annotations, the description is sufficient but lacks details about the output (e.g., what properties are returned). No output schema, but description 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It hints that 'group' is a variation group ID and 'project' is needed, but does not explain format or constraints. Some added meaning, but incomplete.

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 tool lists gallery assets sharing a variation group ID, with specific context (alternatives from one prompt) and use case (side-by-side review). It uses specific verb 'list' and distinct resource, differentiating from siblings like 'list_test_variants'.

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 for reviewing variations side-by-side, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternative tools. Still, the context is clear enough for an agent.

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