scf_get_window_assessment_versions

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

With readOnlyHint=true already declared, the description reinforces the safe read nature and adds detail about what each version captures ('model, prompt version, designations plus any human decision'). However, it does not disclose pagination, limits, or the exact response structure, which would be valuable given no output schema.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no filler. Every clause adds information (ordering, role, content of each version).

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?

Given it is a list operation with straightforward parameters and read-only annotations, the description is quite complete. It covers what the versions contain and the ordering. The only missing piece is output format or pagination, but for a read-only list tool this is a minor 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 coverage is 100%, and both parameters have clear descriptions (UUID formats and how to obtain them). The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high coverage.

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 starts with a specific verb 'List' and a precise resource ('every AI verdict a window assessment has received'), directly conveying what the tool does. It also notes the ordering ('newest first') and what each version contains, making it distinct from siblings like scf_get_window_assessment.

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 implies usage for viewing version history but does not explicitly contrast it with scf_get_window_assessment or scf_get_window_assessment_summary. It states a read-only context ('read — viewer role'), which is helpful, but no concrete 'use when' or 'use instead' guidance is provided.

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