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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description does add useful behavioral context by stating that both current and retained prior versions are returned, which implies version history is preserved rather than replaced. It does not mention pagination or volume limits.

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 the core action first and the return facets trailing. No filler, no redundancy with the title or schema.

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 must convey return shape, and it does list the three return facets. Annotations cover the safety profile and schema coverage is full, so the only omission is guidance on when to reach for this tool versus its restore/publish siblings.

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 both parameters are already documented by the schema, and the description adds no parameter-level detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the burden. Note the schema itself has an issue (sessionId reuses projectId's wording), but that is a schema defect, not a description gap.

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?

Specific verb (List) plus a clearly bounded resource (current and retained prior graph publications), and it enumerates the returned facets (sizes, mapped revisions, restorability). It is distinguishable from restore_project_version by the list-vs-mutate framing, but it never names the sibling or scope explicitly, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named. The relationship to siblings like restore_project_version (view versions before restoring) or publish_project_graph (which creates the versions being listed) is left entirely implicit.

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