rememb_versions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose that the operation is safe and read-only. It also indicates that deleted revisions can be included, but it omits permissions, pagination, ordering, and response-shape details.

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, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the read-only safety note. There is no redundant or wasted text.

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 history-listing tool with fully described parameters, the description covers what is returned conceptually: revisions, snapshots, and optionally deleted states. It could be more complete about ordering or pagination, but no output schema exists to carry that burden.

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 schema already documents entry_id, store, and include_deleted clearly. The description reinforces the deleted-state behavior but adds little parameter meaning beyond 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 states a specific verb and resource: list revisions for a given entry, including prior content snapshots and deleted states. It is clear enough to distinguish it from current-entry reads such as rememb_get, though it does not explicitly name alternatives like rememb_diff or rememb_restore.

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?

It does not explain when to choose this tool over siblings such as rememb_get, rememb_diff, or rememb_restore. The phrase 'when requested' describes the include_deleted parameter rather than offering tool-selection guidance.

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