list_workflow_versions

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry full burden. It describes what is listed (checkpoints and major versions) but lacks details on error handling, pagination behavior, or side effects. Acceptable but could be more transparent.

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 concise sentences with no filler. Front-loaded with the action and purpose. Every word adds value.

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?

No output schema is provided, yet the description does not explain the return structure (e.g., array of version objects with IDs, timestamps). It also omits mention of pagination via limit/offset. The description leaves an agent unclear on what the response contains.

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% (all parameters have descriptions). The description adds marginal context by clarifying the distinction between checkpoint and major values for the 'type' parameter, but mostly repeats what's already in 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 action (list), the resource (workflow's version history), and distinguishes between checkpoints and major versions. It also explicitly ties to a sibling tool (restore_workflow_version), aiding differentiation.

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 gives a specific use case: 'Use this to find the versionId you need for restore_workflow_version.' While it doesn't enumerate when not to use or all alternatives, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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