list_entry_versions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full load. 'List' implies a safe read, and 'descending by version number' conveys sort order, but pagination, limits, and what happens when an entry has no versions are unstated.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the core action, with the ordering hint in parentheses. Nothing is redundant, though the extreme brevity borders on under-specification for a tool with no annotations.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but does not describe the shape of the returned version records or whether the list is bounded. It stops at 'adequate' rather than telling the agent what it will actually get back.

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 the single entry_id parameter is already documented as required in the schema. The description adds only the ordering semantics of the result set, not any meaning about the parameter itself, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List version history for an entry') plus a scope detail (descending by version number). It reads clearly as a read-only listing operation and is distinguishable in practice from the sibling restore_entry_version, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'List'; there is no statement of when to call this versus restore_entry_version or get_entry, and no preconditions are mentioned. An agent can infer intent but gets no explicit routing guidance.

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