list_versions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a minor behavioral detail by stating 'Use this before data queries,' implying a sequencing constraint. It also gives a sense of what the operation returns (patches, builds, dates, commits), but this overlaps with purpose clarity rather than surfacing new behavioral traits like auth needs or rate limits.

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 wastes no words. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the usage directive is a single closing sentence. Every sentence contributes meaningful guidance.

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 read-only listing tool with one optional parameter, full schema coverage, and rich annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It names the kinds of data returned and states when to call it. It could be slightly stronger by referencing sibling tools like diff_versions for comparison tasks, but that is a nicety rather than a critical gap.

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%, and the channel parameter already has a clear description ('Game channel; never inferred from a version number') plus an enum. The description's phrase 'or filter by channel' reinforces optionality but adds no new syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Discover bundled patches, exact client builds, dates, and source commits for both channels, or filter by channel.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the 'or filter by channel' clause adds operational scope. However, it does not explicitly name or distinguish sibling tools such as diff_versions or get_api_history, so it falls short of full uniqueness.

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 provides explicit timing guidance: 'Use this before data queries.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool in a workflow. It does not mention when not to use it, nor does it name alternatives, so it lacks exclusionary guidance.

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