Contract Testing: Get Branch Versions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description only adds the branch scope and restates pagination parameters; it does not disclose iteration behavior, response format, or limits beyond what the schema already provides.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and clear, but the toolset label and the parameter block are redundant with the input schema. The definition is compact yet contains repeated information that does not earn its place.

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?

Required parameters and defaults are fully covered, and the annotations carry the safety information. However, because there is no output schema and the description says 'all versions' while pageSize defaults to 5, an agent is not explicitly told that multiple pages may need to be requested.

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 four parameters. The description's parameter list duplicates the schema without adding semantic detail such as accepted formats, constraints, or richer meaning.

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 first sentence uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('all versions published from a specific branch of a pacticipant'), making the operation distinct from sibling tools such as contract-testing_get_branch or contract-testing_list_pacticipant_versions. The branch scope is precise and immediately understandable.

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 when to use the tool (when branch-filtered versions are needed) but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives. The 'Toolset: Branches and Versions' label provides context but does not help an agent choose between closely related sibling tools.

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