get_versions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, permission requirements, or whether all versions are returned in one call. Minimal transparency beyond the basic operation.

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?

Two sentences (plus a standard Args block) with the purpose front-loaded. No redundant or filler language; every part serves to state the operation and clarify the parameter.

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 low complexity (one required parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter meaning. However, the absence of annotations and any usage guidance leaves some gaps, though the tool is simple enough that these are minor.

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 by naming the parameter 'project_key' and giving an example format ('KAN'), which adds meaning beyond the schema's bare string type. However, it doesn't elaborate on format constraints beyond the example.

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 'Get' and resource 'all versions/releases for a project', making its function unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like create_version or update_version, but the read-only verb naturally separates it.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_project or create_version. The only hint is the required project_key parameter, which implies usage for a specific project, but no explicit context or exclusions are given.

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