list_policy_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 explains the tool lists checkpoints and major versions but does not detail behavior such as pagination (though limit/offset are in schema), response format, or that it is read-only. The description adds some context but lacks explicit behavioral traits.

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?

Two sentences: the first states the purpose and details, the second provides a direct use case. No redundant words, efficient and front-loaded.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains the core purpose and a key use case. However, it omits mention of the return format (e.g., IDs, timestamps) and ordering, which could help agents. Still, it covers the essentials well.

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% with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining what 'checkpoints' and 'major versions' are, which is not in the parameter descriptions. This enriches the agent's understanding of the 'type' parameter.

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 tool lists a policy's version history, distinguishing between checkpoints and major versions. It explicitly connects to the use case of finding versionId for restore_policy_version, which differentiates it from other version list siblings.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use this to find the versionId you need for restore_policy_version.' This tells the agent when to use the tool, though it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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