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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by clarifying that the list covers both current and retained prior publications, and that restorability is disclosed for each version — information an agent needs to decide whether to call restore_project_version.

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 that states the action, scope, and returned attributes without wasted words. Every phrase contributes useful information.

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 read-only list operation with no output schema, the description covers the main return content (versions, sizes, mapped revisions, restorability) and the annotation set covers safety. It does not mention ordering, pagination, or the role of sessionId, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity and the strong annotation coverage.

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%, and the description does not compensate by explaining projectId or sessionId. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, and the tool name implies projectId, but the description itself adds no meaning beyond the raw schema. With low schema coverage and no param guidance, this is a clear 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?

The description names a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('current and retained prior graph publications'), and the exact output dimensions ('sizes, mapped revisions, and restorability'). It clearly differentiates this from siblings like restore_project_version and publish_project_graph by indicating it is purely a listing operation over publication history.

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 implies the usage context — you call this to inspect project publication versions before potentially restoring one — but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related tools or mention any exclusions. This is adequate but leaves the agent to infer routing from naming and sibling context.

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