prompt_version_list

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool lists information (read-only) and mentions no side effects or destructive behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that it does not modify any data or require any special permissions.

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 concise with two short paragraphs. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds detail about what is shown. Every sentence is informative and to the point.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter, no required params, output schema exists), the description is complete. It covers the filtering behavior and what the output contains (versions, first use, usage counts). No additional context 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 description adds meaning to the single parameter (template_name) beyond the schema, explaining it is an optional filter and that leaving it empty lists all tracked templates. Schema coverage is 100%, but the description provides helpful context.

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 tracked Agent template versions and usage counts. It includes a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Agent template versions') and distinguishes from sibling tools like agent_template_list (which likely lists templates themselves) by focusing on versions and usage counts.

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 explains the tool shows version usage counts and provides an optional template name filter, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., agent_template_list, agent_activity_query) or when not to use it.

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