ecp_asdf_list_installed_versions

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

The verb 'List' clearly implies a read-only operation, so the basic behavior is transparent. However, with no annotations, the description doesn't state what happens on invalid or unknown names, and it doesn't explicitly rule out side effects, leaving the burden on the tool name.

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, a single three-word phrase that is immediately scannable. It contains no fluff or repetition, but the brevity comes at the cost of semantic completeness, which is penalized elsewhere.

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?

With one required parameter and no explanation of what it refers to, plus no mention of output or relation to sibling tools, the description is not self-sufficient. An agent would need to rely on the tool name and sibling context to use this correctly.

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 parameter schema provides no description, and the tool description does not compensate. 'name' is left undefined — there is no statement that it is a plugin/language name or an example of valid values, so an agent cannot reliably infer how to fill it.

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 names a clear action (List) and an object (installed versions), but 'installed versions' is ambiguous without specifying of what. The tool name implies asdf, but the description doesn't state that `name` identifies a language/plugin, nor does it distinguish this from the sibling ecp_asdf_list_all_versions.

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?

No guidance is given on when to choose this tool over siblings like ecp_asdf_list_all_versions or ecp_asdf_plugin_list. The description does not mention the required `name` parameter, prerequisites, or typical usage context.

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