list_font_variants

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only listing operation via the verb 'List', but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, whether at least one ID is required, or what happens if multiple IDs are provided. The description adds minimal behavioral detail beyond the verb.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word contributes to the purpose, and there is no unnecessary detail.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description provides the basic purpose but leaves gaps: it does not mention the shareId scope, explain what 'custom font variants' means, or describe the return structure. It is adequate but not fully complete for a tool with four optional parameters.

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 descriptions cover all four parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds a little by grouping parameters into team/file/project, but it omits shareId and does not clarify whether parameters are mutually exclusive or combinable, so it does not elevate the score.

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', the resource 'custom font variants', and the scope 'for a team, file, or project'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_font_variant and delete_font_variant, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context that this tool is used to list font variants for a team, file, or project. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools, but the context is strong enough to infer the primary use case.

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