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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds genuinely new context: the newest-first ordering, the two provenance types of version, the automatic trigger cadence, and the fact that restore is unavailable via the API. That last point in particular prevents a class of misuse.

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 ordering ('newest first') is front-loaded, and the snapshot contents and provenance details follow in a single dense but readable sentence. The closing 'Read-only' is technically redundant with annotations, but it is one word and reinforces the safe profile.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what a version record contains and how versions come to exist, which is enough for an agent to interpret results. It does not say whether the list is paginated or bounded, which is the one remaining gap for a history-listing tool.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains that projectId is a uuid returned by planitude_list_projects. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists the project's saved versions, newest first') and immediately defines what a version is: a full snapshot of tasks, hierarchy, dates, progress, dependencies, and assignments. This clearly separates it from planitude_list_baselines and planitude_save_version among the siblings.

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?

Explains that versions are either automatic (before large operations, every 20 minutes of editing) or named, which tells the agent what to expect and when history exists. It also explicitly rules out one action: 'Restoring a version is only possible in the web interface,' so the agent won't attempt a restore. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative such as planitude_list_baselines.

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