List a brand project's versions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden and excels: it discloses 404 behavior for non-owned projects, the absence of a tier gate, the deliberate exclusion of sharing info, and the meaning of an empty timeline. It also notes permission requirements.

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 longer than minimal but each sentence adds unique value: purpose, scoping, content coverage, sharing rationale, empty-timeline meaning, and permissions. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose and remains readable.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description thoroughly explains what the timeline records (name, domain, fonts, layers, context, variations, reorder), the ordering, edge-case behavior, and permissions. This is complete for a list tool.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context around projectId (ownership scoping) but doesn't elaborate on limit or before, which are already documented in the schema.

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 clearly states the tool lists a brand project's version history, newest first, with details on what changed, when, and by whom. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_brand_project_version (single version) and diff_brand_project_versions (comparison) by focusing on the full timeline.

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 gives clear usage context: owner-scoped, no tier gate, free to call, requires kits:read, and explains that non-owned projects return 404. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, so only a point off.

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