ecp_asdf_list_all_versions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature implicitly ('List') but doesn't clarify whether 'available' means remote registry versions, whether it requires network access, whether the plugin must already be installed/added, or what the response format looks like. For a list operation this is a moderate gap.

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?

One short sentence with an example. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the example adds clarity without bloat. It could be slightly more informative, but it earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter list tool, the description is close to adequate, but with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, it leaves ambiguity about what 'name' means and what 'available versions' includes. An agent could confuse this with listing installed versions or plugin names, so more 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only says 'for a plugin (e.g. nodejs)'. It gives an example value but doesn't explain what 'name' refers to (plugin name vs version name), whether it must match an already-added plugin, or any format constraints. The example helps but doesn't fully compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 ('List') and resource ('all available versions for a plugin'), with an example ('nodejs'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like ecp_asdf_list_installed_versions (installed vs available) and ecp_asdf_plugin_list (plugins vs versions), though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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 implies usage context: it lists available versions for a plugin, which is useful before installing. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs ecp_asdf_list_installed_versions or ecp_asdf_install, nor does it mention prerequisites like whether the plugin must already be added.

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