List diagram versions

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a safe read operation. The description adds value by disclosing the ascending order and the `is_current` field, but does not discuss pagination behavior (like defaults or cursor usage) which could be relevant for large histories. This is sufficient for a read-only list tool with schema coverage.

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 long, immediately states the core purpose, and includes only essential extra information (order, is_current, related tools). Every word contributes meaning, with no fluff or repetition.

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 list tool with a fully documented schema and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description adequately covers the return characteristics (ascending, is_current) and intended companion tools. It would be incomplete if output schema were absent, but the description still conveys the key return field (`is_current`) and ordering, which is sufficient for this complexity.

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 fully documents all three parameters (diagram_id, limit, cursor). The description does not add additional parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, such as examples or edge cases, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List a diagram's version history'. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting the ascending order and `is_current` marker, which makes it clear this is about the full history rather than a single version (get_version) or mutation (revert_diagram).

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 phrase 'Use with revert_diagram / get_version' provides clear context on how this tool fits into a workflow, implying it is for inspecting history before reverting or fetching a specific version. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives for other scenarios, but the pairing gives strong usage guidance.

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