list_company_versions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states that the tool lists version history (checkpoints and major versions) but does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior, ordering (e.g., newest first), read-only status, or any side effects. The parameters imply pagination but are not referenced in the description. This leaves significant ambiguity for the agent.

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 a single, concise sentence (12 words) that front-loads the verb and resource. It contains only essential information with no superfluous words. Every part serves a purpose.

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 tool has three parameters fully described in the schema and no output schema, the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It does not describe the return format or fields in the response, which an agent would need to interpret the output. For a simple list operation, this is a moderate gap that could be addressed with a brief mention of the response structure.

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%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds context by mentioning 'checkpoints and major versions', which aligns with the type parameter's enum values. However, no additional meaning is provided for limit or offset parameters beyond their default values in the schema. The description adds minimal extra 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 the verb 'List' and the resource 'company document's version history'. It specifies inclusion of checkpoints and major versions, which distinguishes it from siblings like read_company_version (reads a specific version) or name_company_major_version (names a version). Other version list tools (list_workflow_versions, etc.) target different resources, so purpose is unique and clear.

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 usage for listing company document versions but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., read_company_version for a specific version). It does not mention when not to use it or any prerequisites. The context from the tool name and sibling names partially compensates, but lacks direct guidance.

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