list_reference_doc_versions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It describes a read-only 'list' operation, implying safety, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like pagination behavior, sorting, or authentication needs. It adds context on version types but lacks depth.

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 two concise sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core function and immediately provides usage guidance.

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?

Despite being a listing tool with no output schema, the description omits any mention of return values or structure. It does not indicate what fields are returned (e.g., versionId, timestamp, type), which is critical for an agent to interpret results. The schema covers inputs but not outputs.

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 baseline is 3. The description explains the meaning of the 'type' parameter (checkpoint vs major) and defaults, adding value beyond the schema. Other parameters are well-documented in 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 tool lists version history of a reference_doc, distinguishing between checkpoints and major versions. It also specifies the purpose of finding versionId for restore. This separates it from sibling tools like read_reference_doc_version or restore_reference_doc_version.

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 says to use it to find versionId for restore, providing clear context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the purpose is well-defined.

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