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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real domain context beyond that — the fact that every save retains the previous version — which explains what the listed items actually represent. It stops short of stating ordering, count limits, or whether deleted-file versions are included.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero padding; the parenthetical earns its place by defining version semantics.

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 should ideally say what a version entry contains (id, timestamp, author) and how results are ordered or paginated. Annotations and the schema cover safety and inputs, so the definition is usable but leaves the shape of the response unknown.

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 all three parameters (path, file_id, workspace) are documented with examples and the path/file_id alternative is spelled out in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 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 ("List the saved versions of a file") and parenthetically defines what a version is, which is genuinely clarifying. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_folder or read_file, but the resource (versions) is distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.

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?

Usage is implied: call this when you need the history of saves for a specific file. There is no explicit guidance on when not to use it, no mention of how to choose between the path and file_id parameters, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., file must exist in the caller's workspace).

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