List a kit's versions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It covers token cost ('Metadata only, so no tokens come back'), pagination ('Paginated newest-first through meta.nextBefore'), edge cases for catalog kits (empty timeline, currentVersion 0), the difference between '0' and missing value, and permission requirements ('needs kits:read'). It also discloses Pro kit label null behavior.

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 long but every sentence contributes essential context—purpose, usage guidance, exclusions, alternatives, edge cases, and permissions. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it is a single dense paragraph without line breaks, which slightly harms readability, though not enough to lower below 4.

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?

The description fully covers the tool's behavior for a read operation: what it returns, how pagination works, edge cases for catalog and Pro kits, and permission requirements. It also clarifies the meaning of the 0 currentVersion state. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently explains the expected content without needing to detail the exact response structure.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra parameter meaning beyond the schema—it mentions pagination via meta.nextBefore, but the schema already explains 'Pass meta.nextBefore from the previous page' for the before parameter. No new parameter semantics are introduced.

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's function: 'The kit's VERSION timeline, newest first: which version, when, by whom, and the author's note.' It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly contrasting with list_kit_history, get_kit_version, and diff_kit_versions, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use it to answer the question a repo built against this kit actually has, which is whether the kit has moved since.' It also states when not to use it ('It is not the full history...') and names the alternatives (list_kit_history, get_kit_version, diff_kit_versions).

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