list_workflow_versions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('list') but does not reveal details such as whether the operation is read-only, response format, pagination behavior, or any side effects. This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the essential purpose. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundant information.

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 the simplicity of the tool (single parameter, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose and parameter. However, it lacks details like return structure or pagination behavior, which an agent would need for effective use.

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?

The description adds minimal value beyond the input schema: it clarifies that 'workflow_id' is a UUID by stating 'The workflow UUID'. With 0% schema coverage, this provides some additional context, but does not fully compensate (e.g., no format or constraints).

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 action ('list') and the resource ('all versions of a workflow'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like 'get_workflow_version' (which retrieves a single version) and 'create_workflow_version' (which creates).

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 context by specifying the required 'workflow_id' argument, indicating the tool is used when all versions of a particular workflow are needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., 'get_workflow_version') or when not to use it.

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