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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the ordering (newest-first), the default/max limit, and the content of each returned row (version number, creation time, creator, summary). It does not discuss auth, errors, or side effects, but 'List' and 'Returns' make the read-only nature clear.

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 three concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides output behavior and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple two-parameter tool and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return content, ordering, limits, and usage. Minor gaps remain: it does not specify what happens with an invalid or unknown flowId, nor explicitly connect to the revert_flow_to_version sibling for the actual revert action.

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 0%, so the description must add parameter meaning. It explains that limit controls 'the most recent N revisions' with default and max, and that the tool operates on 'a flow' identifying the flowId. This adds useful semantics beyond the bare schema types.

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 the version history of a flow.' It clearly distinguishes this from related siblings like get_flow and get_flow_stats by focusing on historical revisions, and even ties it to user intent ('show me what I had before').

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this when the user asks "show me what I had before" or wants to revert.' This gives clear context, though it does not mention alternatives such as revert_flow_to_version or exclude cases where the user wants the current flow state.

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