apps_script_list_versions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. It adds the behavioral detail of automatic pagination, which is not captured in the annotations. However, it doesn't mention other aspects like authentication requirements or rate limits, leaving gaps beyond what annotations cover.

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 extremely concise with just 8 words. It front-loads the core purpose ('List immutable versions') followed by the key behavioral note about pagination. No filler or redundant information detracts from its efficiency.

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 no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description is far too sparse to be complete. It doesn't explain what the returned versions look like, what information is included, or any details about pagination behavior beyond 'automatically following.' An agent would be left with significant unknowns about the response format and how the parameters affect results.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation. The description mentions no parameters at all - not scriptId, maxPages, or pageSize. While the schema provides defaults and ranges, the description adds zero semantic value for parameters, making it difficult for an agent to understand what each parameter controls.

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 'List immutable versions' - a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from related tools like apps_script_create_version and apps_script_get_version by focusing on listing, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The resource scope is implied by the required scriptId parameter, but the description alone is somewhat generic without mentioning the script context.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_version or create_version. The only behavioral guidance is 'automatically following pagination,' which is about how it operates, not about selecting the right tool. No context about prerequisites or when this is the preferred choice is provided.

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