List workflow versions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. Description adds that it calls a GET endpoint, confirming read-only nature. However, it doesn't disclose additional behaviors like pagination behavior or rate limits. With good annotations, the description provides minor added value.

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 short sentences, minimal redundancy. Front-loaded with the core action. Could be slightly more efficient, but overall concise and to the point.

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?

No output schema and no description of return format. The tool has 5 optional parameters with filtering capabilities, but the description doesn't explain filtering scope or pagination. For a list operation, the description lacks completeness about what the response contains.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions 'with the provided ID' vaguely referencing workflowID parameter, but adds no substantive meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Does not explain how parameters interact.

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 states it lists workflow versions and explicitly mentions the API endpoint. While it doesn't contrast with sibling 'render_get_workflow_version', the name and verb imply listing vs retrieval. Purpose is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'render_get_workflow_version'. No mention of prerequisites or filtering context. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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