List versions

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive safety profile, so the description adds value beyond them: it discloses the one-page-per-call pagination contract and the security-relevant trait that version names/descriptions are untrusted user-authored data that must be read as data, never instructions. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose first, then the update-tool linkage, filtering guidance, the injection warning, and the pagination contract. There is no filler or repetition; it is dense but scannable.

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 no output schema, the description names the key return fields (id, name, dates, released/archived, paging.partial, paging.nextStartAt), which is enough for an agent to consume results and page correctly. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and a fully documented input schema, nothing critical for a correct first call is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter well, including the project key source (jira_list_projects), filter semantics, and pagination fields. The description adds only marginal guidance ('Narrow with query or status' and the paging flow), which is useful but does not substantially compensate beyond the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 (Lists) and resource (a project's versions/releases), clarifies what versions are (what fixVersions/affectedVersions point at), and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, dates, released/archived). The definition distinguishes itself from sibling list tools like jira_list_components and jira_list_projects, and explicitly connects its output to jira_update_version.

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?

Provides clear usage context: how to narrow results with `query` or `status`, when the version id matters (for jira_update_version), and exactly when to call again (paging.partial true → startAt = paging.nextStartAt). It does not explicitly state when-not-to-use or name alternative tools for other scenarios, so it stops short of a 5.

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