list_spec_versions

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

With no annotations, the description is the only source of behavioral context. It implies a read-only reference lookup and describes what is returned, but it does not mention whether data is static or dynamic, formatting, or any access constraints.

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 efficient sentence with the core action and return value front-loaded. Every phrase contributes directly to understanding the tool's output.

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?

For a zero-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying the shape of the required-fields data or indicating that no input is needed.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema imposes no semantic burden. The description's focus on return content is appropriate, and parameter semantics are not applicable.

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 states a specific verb and resource: returns supported MCP spec revisions and their required fields. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like check_required_fields.

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?

Usage is implied by the return content: an agent can infer this is for looking up spec revisions and required fields. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus check_required_fields or audit_server_json.

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