project_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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a listing and mentions ordering, but it does not disclose whether the folder must exist, what happens if no versions are found, whether it scans recursively, or what the return format is. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant 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?

The description is two sentences and front-loads the core purpose and ordering. The parameter explanation is compact and useful. It earns its place with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 listing tool, the description covers the basic purpose and parameter. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves out return format, error behavior, and edge cases (empty folder, missing folder). It is adequate but not complete.

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. It does explain the only parameter ('folder') and its default ('default project folder'), which adds meaning beyond the schema's bare type/null/default. However, it does not specify path format, relative vs absolute paths, or behavior when folder is invalid.

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 ('saved .toe versions in the project folder') and adds ordering ('newest-first'). It is clear and distinguishable from siblings like project_snapshot or bridge_snapshots, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 saved versions in the project folder, which is a read-only listing operation. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like bridge_snapshots or project_snapshot, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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