List variants

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses a known KIT API defect where ARCHIVED is silently stripped from the status filter, and explains the tool's detection and error-reporting behavior (STATUS_FILTER_IGNORED, ARCHIVE_READ_UNSUPPORTED, MIXED_ARCHIVED_FILTER_UNSUPPORTED). This adds crucial behavioral context not captured in annotations.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose, then provides essential behavior details. It is three sentences long and every sentence contributes meaningful information, though the last sentence is quite dense and could be slightly more concise. Overall, it is well-structured and efficient.

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 list tool with six optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides comprehensive context: pagination is mentioned, default filtering behavior is stated, the major API defect is disclosed with error codes, and the alternative for archived variants is given. The readOnlyHint annotation covers safety, so the description is sufficiently 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds some context (e.g., default statuses and the defect affecting the 'status' filter), but it does not significantly enhance parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'List variants (sellable items / SKUs) of the store, with optional filters (paginated)'. It identifies the resource (variants/SKUs) and the action (list), and distinguishes itself from the sibling get_variant tool by explicitly noting that archived variants can only be read by ID via get_variant.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool and when not to: it states the default behavior (returns all statuses except ARCHIVED) and gives an alternative (get_variant) for accessing archived variants. It also describes the tool's defensive behavior of failing with specific error codes instead of returning incorrect data, which helps agents avoid misuse.

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