list_partial_versions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by previewing the returned fields, but says nothing about result volume, ordering, or pagination for what could be a long version history.

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, zero waste, with the resource scope front-loaded and the usage hook second. Nothing is repeated from the name or schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety. The remaining gap is minor: whether the list is bounded or paginated for partials with many versions.

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% and the single parameter already documents 'Prompt partial ID or slug'. The description's 'for one partial' reinforces the single-partial scope but adds no format or resolution detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List all versions for one partial') and enumerates the fields returned (version numbers, descriptions, status, timestamps). It is clearly distinct from list_prompt_versions in substance, but it never names that sibling, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use clause: you need history, or you need a version_id before calling publish_partial. That ties the tool into a workflow. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., use get_prompt_partial for the partial itself).

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