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

The description reinforces the safety profile with 'Read-only' and adds meaningful context that the tool exposes historical versions for auditing and rollback. It does not add detail about pagination or response shape, but the annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower here.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The guidance sentence is slightly long but packs useful sibling differentiation into one line. Minor redundancy exists between 'rollback' in the first sentence and 'before rollback_skill,' but overall it is 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 simple read-only listing tool with strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description gives enough context to invoke it correctly: what it lists, when to use it, where to use it, and the sibling relationship. The only minor gap is not describing what fields or structure the returned historical versions contain, but no output schema exists to fill that role.

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 the input schema fully documents playbook_id, skill_id, and limit. The description does not add meaningful parameter meaning beyond noting that playbook_id is the target playbook, which the schema already states.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List historical versions of a skill.' It explicitly frames the tool for auditing and rollback purposes and distinguishes it from siblings by naming get_skill and list_skills as alternatives for current and all skills, respectively.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this before rollback_skill.' It also clarifies when the sibling tools should be used instead—get_skill for the current definition and list_skills for all skills in the playbook.

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