list_agent_versions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists checkpoints and major versions but does not mention that it is a read-only operation, pagination details, or ordering. The behavioral transparency is limited.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides a usage guideline. Every sentence adds value without any fluff.

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 that the tool has four parameters but no output schema, the description explains the output (checkpoints and major versions) and ties it to a specific use case. It does not detail pagination or output format, but it is reasonably complete for a listing tool with a clear dependency on restore_agent_version.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters (id, type, limit, offset) and their descriptions. The description adds the context of finding versionId but does not provide additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema offers.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists an agent's version history, distinguishing between checkpoints (every save) and major versions (named releases). It also specifies the exact use case: finding the versionId for restore_agent_version. This differentiates it from sibling tools like list_workflow_versions.

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 'Use this to find the versionId you need for restore_agent_version,' providing clear context for use. However, it does not mention when not to use it or contrast with other version-listing tools.

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