clawhub_list_versions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies idempotence ('list') but does not explicitly state it is read-only or non-destructive. It also fails to explain pagination behavior despite the presence of a cursor parameter, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 very short and to the point, with one sentence and a clear list of parameters. It avoids unnecessary words, but could benefit from better structure (e.g., separating purpose and usage).

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?

The tool has 3 parameters and no output schema. The description omits crucial context such as return format, pagination mechanics, whether unpublished versions are included, and the nature of the slug parameter. For a list operation, these details are essential for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only lists parameter names and required/optional status without explaining their meanings (e.g., what 'slug' refers to, how 'limit' and 'cursor' control pagination). This adds minimal value over the schema.

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 clearly states 'List all versions of a skill,' which specifies the verb (list) and resource (versions of a skill). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like clawhub_get_version (single version) and clawhub_list_skills (list of skills).

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 indicates required and optional parameters, establishing when to use the tool. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool recommendations, though the sibling tool names imply alternatives.

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